Preamble

The House met at Half past Two o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — CRIMES (STATISTICS)

Mr. Leslie Hale: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the number of cases of wilful criminal homicide reported to the police for the periods, 16th April to 18th November, in the years 1947, 1948 and 1949, respectively.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede): I regret that it is not possible to give figures for this exact period during the three years in question; but the number of murders reported to the police in England and Wales during the period from 1st April to 30th November in each of these three years was 139 in 1947, 128 in 1948, and 101 in 1949. These figures include some cases which were subsequently established to be crimes other than murder, for example, manslaughter and infanticide.

Mr. Hale: Will my right hon. Friend therefore, agree that these figures show that during the period when capital punishment was abolished there was a diminution in capital crime, and that that good result still continues notwithstanding the restoration of capital punishment.

Mr. Ede: When I looked at these three sets of figures I thought that every person who read them would draw different interpretations from them. I do not intend to quarrel with my hon. Friend's interpretation, although I do not necessarily agree with it.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: Is it not, however, quite clear that, no matter how people may differently interpret them, the figures show beyond controversy that there was no increase during the period when capital punishment was not imposed?

Mr. Ede: Yes, Sir, I think that can be said, but the three sets of figures taken together also bear out the contention which I have advanced in this House, that crimes of personal violence are diminishing by comparison with a few years ago.

Oral Answers to Questions — TAXIMETERS (FARE INCREASE NOTICES)

Mr. Dodds: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is aware that the average passenger is unable to read the unusually small print on the slips provided for display on taximeters in respect to the 3d. increase; and if he will arrange for more suitable notices, for which there is the space available, and so avoid undue irritation to taxi-drivers and passengers.

Mr. Ede: I agree that this simple notice is on the small side, owing to the restricted space available either on the taximeter or the fare table, but I have heard of no practical difficulty resulting.

Mr. Dodds: Is my right hon. Friend aware that on this tiny slip of paper more than half the area is occupied by the two words "Police Notice," and that the message to the public is on less than half of the slip? If my right hon. Friend cannot accept my simple practical suggestion, would he supply a microscope to each taxicab?

Mr. Ede: No, Sir. I think that is not necessary, and I understand that even the drivers agree that the tip does not need to be examined in that way.

Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braithwaite: Are not taxi-drivers keeping the public informed, in the meantime, in unmistakable language, of their views on the increase in the petrol tax?

Mr. Ede: I am glad to know that the hon. and gallant Member can recognise the language.

Professor Savory: Is it not possible to put the three pence down as an extra in the space where luggage carried outside is shown?

Mr. Ede: No, Sir, because the extras do not count in the money which has to be handed over by the driver to the proprietor of the cab. The arrangement


is that two-thirds of the money which appears on the top set of figures will be received by the owner. All the extras go to the driver and the hon. Gentleman's suggestion would, therefore, not be fair.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRISONERS (REMISSION OF SENTENCE)

Major Tufton Beamish: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he can now say whether he is satisfied that the present system whereby prisoners automatically earn remission of sentence not exceeding one-third of the whole sentence unless such remission is forfeited by bad conduct is a better arrangement than the earlier system whereby remission of sentence was only granted as a reward for good conduct.

Mr. Ede: Yes, Sir. The earlier system, based on a daily award of marks, was in practice no less automatic than the present one, which is just as effective as an incentive to good conduct and much simpler to operate.

Oral Answers to Questions — ALIENS

Italian Subject (Letter)

Mr. Crouch: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department why his Department, on being requested on the telephone last week to forward a letter from a British subject in Dorset to an Italian subject visiting this country, refused to do so, despite the fact that his Department knew the address of the Italian visitor; and whether this is the normal practice of his Department.

Mr. Ede: The address given by an alien who registers with the police under the Aliens Order is treated as confidential and it is the practice to refuse to forward letters to him. In exceptional cases, such as where there are compassionate grounds, the police are asked to give to the alien the name and address of the person who is seeking to get in touch with him, making it clear to the alien that he is under no compulsion to respond. In the case to which the hon. Member refers the information did not seem to justify action on these lines.

Mr. Crouch: On what grounds did the right hon. Gentleman's Department

refuse to forward this letter, because I see no harm in forwarding a letter without disclosing the address of a person who wanted the letter to be forwarded?

Mr. Ede: Many of the aliens who come here are fleeing from some form of persecution and it would be very undesirable that the police should be used to convey, even in this kind of way, a letter that might contain a threat to them

Journalists

Mr. Russell: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many aliens are employed in the United Kingdom as journalists on behalf of the Press in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and her satellite countries; and how many have been expelled from this country in the past five years.

Mr. Ede: I regret that the information requested in the first part of the Question is not available. I am not aware of any case in which it has been necessary to require the departure of an alien journalist of the type referred to by the hon. Member.

Mr. Russell: In view of the fact that at least nine British journalists have been expelled or excluded from countries behind the Iron Curtain in the last five years, would the right hon. Gentleman consider, in consultation with the Foreign Secretary, whether the threat of retaliation might not stop some of these undesirable expulsions?

Mr. Ede: No, Sir. We have nothing to hide as to what goes on in this country.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTTISH PARTY (VISIT TO LONDON)

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department on what information exceptional precautions were taken by the police in London on 11th March, 1950, in connection with the visit of 30 Scotsmen and women from Dumbarton; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Ede: I am not in any event prepared to disclose the sources or nature of information received by the police, but in fact no exceptional precautions were taken in London itself in connection with this visit.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is normal for a bus load of people to be met by the police, escorted by them the whole day and the names taken of all the passengers, who are informed that they are Irish and that the pipers with them would go to gaol if they let out even a squeak? Is this really the normal process in connection with any party arriving from anywhere?

Mr. Ede: That is not the account that has been given to me by the police of what happened.

Mr. Walter Fletcher: Were any precautions taken in Dumbarton when some very doubtful characters from London appeared there recently?

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the information I have is first-hand, that the people who gave it to me are perfectly respectable and that these are facts, whatever the police report may be?

Mr. Ede: If the hon. and gallant Member will see me, or make a statement about this matter, I will have it investigated. I will certainly investigate the statements that were made in his first supplementary question.

Oral Answers to Questions — POLITICAL PROCESSIONS, EAST LONDON

Mr. Charles Ian Orr-Ewing: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police it is proposed to divert from normal duties to protect the march of the London Union Movement through East London on Sunday, 7th May, 1950.

Mr. Eric Fletcher: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that Sir Oswald Mosley has announced his intention of marching through the East End of London on Sunday, 7th May, to address a meeting at Ridley Road, Dalston; and what steps will be taken to prevent a breach of the peace arising.

Mr. Ede: Appropriate police measures will be taken to deal with any contravention of the Commissioner's Order prohibiting political processions. It would not be in the public interest to give details of any such measures in advance.

Mr. Fletcher: Will my right hon. Friend consider whether, without condemning freedom of speech, he has not powers under the existing law to prevent these appeals to racial hatred being made in districts where they are calculated to cause the greatest provocation?

Mr. Ede: The procession which was the basis of this arrangement has been prohibited, and I am quite certain that I have no further powers that I have not exercised.

Mr. C. I. Orr-Ewing: As there is to be a meeting instead of a procession, are there not powers which the Home Secretary possesses to suggest that meetings should not be held in that part of the country, which would mean police being drawn away from their very valuable anti-crime duties at a time when their presence is very important elsewhere?

Mr. Ede: No, Sir. I have no power to discriminate between meetings, and I am determined not to do anything that will lead to any suppression of free speech. If anything is said at this meeting which makes it appear likely that a breach of the peace will be caused, appropriate action will be taken.

Oral Answers to Questions — HISTORICAL RECORDS (INSPECTION)

Lieut.-Colonel Hyde: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to transfer to the Public Record Office in the interests of historical research such of his remaining Departmental records as are more than 50 years old; and how far access to these records by the public will be subject to any restrictions.

Mr. Ede: Records prior to 1870 are already with the Public Record Office; those of the following 30 years are expected to be transferred by the end of 1951. Access to the majority of these records will not be subject to any restrictions but certain classes of paper, as, for example, those which might be used in such a way as to give pain to living persons, will not normally be open for public inspection.

Lieut.-Colonel Hyde: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that these records are of as much public and historic


interest as those of the Star Chamber, whose publication at present in a London evening newspaper is, presumably, not subject to any restriction? In view of this would the right hon. Gentleman remove all restrictions when the documents are released at the end of 1951?

Mr. Ede: No, Sir. I think that one must have regard to pain that might be caused to living persons if certain papers were open to public inspection. Apart from that, they will be available for inspection by anyone who wants to see them.

Oral Answers to Questions — REMAND HOMES

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many open remand homes now exist; approximately how many male and female young delinquents these accommodate; what percentage abscond; and, in the light of experience, what extension of the experiment is to be made.

Mr. Ede: The 86 remand homes in England and Wales provide places for 1,462 boys and 402 girls. Figures showing the number of children who at one time or another in 1949 were in remand homes are not available, but the total must be greater than the number of places, since many children are in for short periods only. Some 634 boys and 277 girls absconded in 1949. Remand homes are not classified into open and closed institutions, but the general policy is to rely as little as possible on physical means of restraint to prevent absconding, and this policy is kept under review in the light of experience.

Mr. Sorensen: I do not think that my right hon. Friend has answered the last part of my Question, which was:
 in the light of experience, what extension of the experiment is to me made?
Is it to be extended still further?

Mr. Ede: I thought the answer implied that there was no experiment. The remand homes are not divided into two classes. As little physical restraint as possible is applied.

Oral Answers to Questions — ELECTORAL CONFERENCE

Brigadier Peto: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department

whether the committee which have been considering complaints of slowness of the counting of votes in certain constituencies, and kindred matters, at the recent General Election, has now reported; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. Ede: The Electoral Conference is not a formal committee that presents formal reports. I have had the benefit of its advice on the counting of the votes and other matters, and there will be a further meeting next week. With regard to the last part of the Question, I have nothing to add at present to the answer which I gave to a Question by the hon. Member for Fife, East (Mr. Stewart), on 6th April.

Brigadier Peto: Can the Home Secretary say whether he will increase the allowance for those engaged in counting the votes, so as to enable there to be more men counting the votes in future than at the last Election?

Mr. Ede: That is one of the matters which are now under consideration by the Conference.

Air-Commodore Harvey: Where the counting of votes is slow because of the small size of the town hall, will the right hon. Gentleman consider allowing the count to take place in another building which is of suitable size?

Mr. Ede: The place where the count takes place is a matter for the Returning Officer, and quite frequently it takes place in the halls of schools and similar places which may be more commodious than town halls in small towns.

Oral Answers to Questions — NORTHERN IRELAND (TRAVEL REGULATIONS)

Lieut.-Colonel Hyde: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department why travellers between Great Britain and Northern Ireland are still required to be in possession of passports or travel identity cards; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Ede: The requirement is necessary in order to enable the entry of aliens into Great Britain through the Irish Republic and Northern Ireland to be controlled. Control at the land border between the Irish Republic and Northern Ireland is not practicable.

Lieut.-Colonel Hyde: If, as I understand it, the real purpose of these travel regulations is to check the movements of citizens of the Republic of Eire travelling between their country and this country by way of Northern Ireland, could the right hon. Gentleman say why these checks cannot be equally well, if not better, carried out by the security authorities in Northern Ireland? Does the Home Secretary realise that the continuance of these war-time restrictons is causing grave resentment on the part of many British subjects travelling from one loyal part of the United Kingdom to another?

Mr. Ede: I know that inconvenience is caused, but it is not only citizens of the Irish Republic whom it is necessary to check in this way. Unless this check was applied, very undesirable aliens might enter this country via the Irish Republic, because the check made at the Irish Republic ports is not nearly as close and severe as at our ports.

Oral Answers to Questions — FIRE SERVICE, AXBRIDGE

Mr. Ian L. Orr-Ewing: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will have a survey made of the siting of towing vehicles for trailer fire pumps in the Axbridge Rural District; and, pending the receipt of a report from such a survey, whether he will give instructions that no towing vehicles are to be removed, and that any removed during the last two months should be replaced.

Mr. Ede: No, Sir. This is a matter for the county council, who are the fire authority, but I shall be glad to bring the hon. Member's suggestion to the notice of the county council.

Mr. Off-Ewing: In view of what is happening already in that part of Somerset, could not the right hon. Gentleman draw the attention of the county council to the fact that they are depleting fire cover in a very dangerous manner over a wide area?

Mr. Ede: No, Sir. I have been very careful in his matter and I might be told by the county council that I am going beyond my powers if I did that; but I

am sending the comments of the hon. Member to them and I have no doubt they will see his supplementary question.

Oral Answers to Questions — CORONERS (POWERS)

Mr. Marlowe: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many coroners have no legal qualification; under what authority they admit hearsay evidence; in what circumstances they may exclude the Press from an inquest or hold an inquest in camera; whether they are required to make and preserve records of evidence given before them; and what steps are taken to ensure uniformity of procedure in coroners' courts.

Mr. Ede: The answer to the first part of the Question is that this information is not available; to the second, that the coroner's discretion as to what evidence should be admitted at an inquest is vested in him by Common Law; to the third, that while a coroner's court is ordinarily open to the public, the High Court confirmed in 1827 that the coroner has a discretion under the common law to hold an inquest in private for reasons which appear to him necessary and proper; to the fourth, that coroners are by Statute required to take depositions in cases of murder and manslaughter and that it is generally accepted that they should keep those records and should also keep records of the evidence given in other cases; and to the fifth, that coroners are independent judicial officers who are not answerable to any Government Department, but are bound by the common law and the provisions of the relevant Acts and the rules made thereunder.

Mr. Marlowe: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that all this discloses a rather unsatisfactory condition in coroners' courts and that it is time legislation was introduced to secure some form of uniformity? In view of his answer last week, that this would arouse controversy, does he not think that each of these suggestions could pass through this House without any political controversy?

Mr. Ede: I am not sure that five " non-controversial " matters would not develop into controversy.

Mr. Leslie Hale: In view of the fact that no verdict of a coroner's inquest can be mentioned at subsequent proceedings, and that it is now general to adjourn


pending proceedings, does he think that coroners' courts now serve any purpose to the community?

Mr. Ede: Oh, yes, I think they have their uses.

Earl Winterton: As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hove (Mr. Marlowe) said, this is not a party political question, but is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a very considerable depth of feeling, legal and otherwise, that this whole matter needs review by this House?

Mr. Ede: I think it is a matter which, when there is time, might advantageously be considered.

Oral Answers to Questions — DEPRIVATION OF CITIZENSHIP (INQUIRY)

Mr. Eric Fletcher: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many cases involving deprivation of citizenship he is proposing to refer to the Committee of Inquiry appointed under the British Nationality Act, 1948.

Mr. Ede: I have under consideration three cases which may be referred to the Committee.

Mr. Fletcher: Can my right hon. Friend say when the recommendations of the Committee will be reported to this House?

Mr. Ede: No, I do not think they have to be.

Oral Answers to Questions — ELECTORAL REGISTRATION

Brigadier Peto: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to be in a position to present his proposed amendments to the regulations concerning electoral registration.

Mr. Ede: Probably in June.

Brigadier Peto: Will the right hon. Gentleman make sure that when such simplification as is to be carried out is carried out there will be adequate publicity, so that everyone will know what they have to do?

Mr. Ede: The regulations will have to be submitted to this House and there will be an opportunity for discussing them, if that is desired. I will endeavour

to see that through the B.B.C., and other methods of publicity, adequate knowledge is conveyed to the public.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHILDREN, HULL (CHARGE)

Mr. Llewellyn: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department why four children between the ages of eight and 12, deserted by their parents, were charged at Hull Juvenile Court with stealing dinner tickets from school; and how it came about that a mentally defective brother of 13 lived with them unknown to the officials of the Children's Committee.

Mr. Ede: When the four children were charged it came to light that their father, a trawler engineer whose wife had deserted him, had arranged with the children's grandparents, who live a mile away, to provide meals for the children and to look after them during his absence at sea. The fifth child, who is not mentally deficient but educationally subnormal, was received into care by the Hull City Council when the other children were placed in the remand home on 19th April. The case against the four children is still sub judice.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE

Sclerosis and Paralysis

Mr. Leslie Hale: asked the Minister of Health whether he is prepared to make provision out of the National Health Service for the experimental treatment of sufferers from disseminated sclerosis and paralysis agitans.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Aneurin Bevan): This is already being done.

Mr. Hale: If it is being done, would my right hon. Friend extend that possibility to certain forms of treatment I have in mind and would it not be a very good thing indeed for a full investigation to be made of the claims that are being made in this matter?

Mr. Bevan: As my hon. Friend will remember, as soon as I heard about it I sent to investigate the claims of a German doctor, but those claims have not yet been fully assessed. They are in process of being assessed.

Byssynosis

Mr. Leslie Hale: asked the Minister of Health whether any form of remedial treatment is available under the National Health Service for chronic sufferers from byssynosis; and whether he will consult with the Minister of National Insurance and the Minister of Labour, with a view to making additional provisions for these sufferers.

Mr. Bevan: The treatment needed is not peculiar to byssynosis and is already available through the Service.

Mr. Hale: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in the Lancashire cotton area there are many chronic sufferers from this disease who are seriously suffering and, because of physical limitations, cannot obtain any available treatment at all? Will he consider establishing special institutions for chronic sufferers from chronic diseases?

Mr. Bevan: I understand from my advisers that the treatment for this disease, which is peculiar to cotton operatives, is the same sort of treatment as is given for other chest diseases; but if there are not sufficient facilities available in the area to which he refers I will make further inquiries.

Hospital Accounts (Publication)

Air-Commodore Harvey: asked the Minister of Health why hospital accounts are not published; and if he will consider doing so in future.

Mr. Bevan: As required by the National Health Service Act, summary hospital accounts will be presented to Parliament annually and the first such account will be available shortly.

Air-Commodore Harvey: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it would be better for all hospitals to publish their own accounts, which would lead to greater efficiency and greater understanding among the staffs?

Mr. Bevan: If hospitals were to publish their accounts to the public before they are published for the benefit of the House of Commons. it would be a breach of privilege.

Mr. Geoffrey Cooper: Would my right hon. Friend consider making arrange-

ments so that the fullest financial information is available to hospital management committees, because they cannot carry out their job unless they have fullest access to financial details?

Mr. Bevan: I should be astonished to learn that hospital management committees did not know of their own accounts. The Question on the Order Paper is entirely different; it is whether the public are to have access to the accounts before they are presented to Parliament.

Sir Ralph Glyn: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether his Department are issuing model rules as to the form which hospital accounts should take?

Mr. Bevan: In the last few weeks I have addressed conferences of chairmen of boards of governors of teaching hospitals, regional hospital boards and hospital management committees at which I have reported that we are now issuing standard accounts.

Mr. R. S. Hudson: When the accounts have been published for the benefit of Parliament, will the accounts of local hospitals be available locally?

Mr. Bevan: I will look into it, but I see no special reason why they should not be, because I am hoping to encourage local hospitals to hold annual open meetings, at which they can discuss their affairs.

Hospitals (Administrative Staff)

Brigadier Rayner: asked the Minister of Health what is the latest available total of non-medical and non-nursing administrative staff now employed in hospitals as compared with the figures for each of the previous five years.

Mr. Bevan: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Carlton (Mr. Pickthorn) on 20th April.

Brigadier Rayner: Do those figures afford an explanation of the gigantic, fantastic and swelling costs of the National Health Service?

Mr. Bevan: If the hon. and gallant Member will read the answer I have given he will see how utterly irrelevant his supplementary question is.

Nurses (Salaries)

Brigadier Rayner: asked the Minister of Health when he will be able to announce the new rates of pay for hospital nursing staffs above the rank of ward sister.

Mr. Bevan: I have not yet received the Whitley Council's report.

Brigadier Rayner: In view of the situation obtaining whereby matrons, assistant matrons and sister tutors are getting a great deal less salary than junior ward sisters, will the Minister try to hurry this matter up?

Mr. Bevan: I think that the Whitley Council is about to approach a final consideration of this matter.

Air-Commodore Harvey: asked the Minister of Health if he will consider bringing the salaries paid to Queen's District Nurses into line with salaries paid to nurses in hospital.

Mr. Poole: asked the Minister of Health what disparities in salaries and conditions exist between hospital nurses and members of the home nursing service under the Health Scheme; if he is aware that the continued operation of the home nursing service in Birmingham is threatened by the alleged injustices under which home nurses work; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Murray: asked the Minister of Health whether the case for increased salaries, for public health nurses, domiciliary nurses and midwives has been heard by the Industrial Court; whether such court have reported their findings; and, if they have not already done so. will he use his good offices to speed up the same in view of the fact there is great public interest in this matter.

Sir Ian Fraser: asked the Minister of Health if he can now say what proposals he has to adjust the salaries of district nurses and other external nurses to conform to the recent increases in the emoluments for internal nurses.

Mr. Driberg: asked the Minister of Health if he has now received the decision of the Industrial Court on the claim by domiciliary midwives and public health nurses that their salaries should still be related to those of nurses employed in hospitals; and if, in view of the importance of the work done by these

midwives and nurses, especially in isolated rural dwellings, he will expedite the necessary salary adjustments.

Miss Burton: asked the Minister of Health if he is now in a position to announce the decision of the Industrial Court on the salaries of midwives and health visitors referred to the court for arbitration and discussed on 24th April last.

Major H. Johnson: asked the Minister of Health when he will be in a position to announce the new rates of pay for fully-trained district nurses, Queen's nurses, district nurse-midwives, health visitors and school nurses.

Mr. Bevan: I understand that the Industrial Court has just made its award on the salaries of public health nurses and domiciliary nurses and midwives, and copies will be available in a day or two.

Mr. Pickthorn: I did not catch the last few syllables of the right hon. Gentleman's reply.

Mr. Bevan: I said that copies will be available in a day or two.

Mr. Driberg: Does my right hon. Friend himself know the terms of the award, and, if so, would he be good enough to say whether those of us who put down these Questions will regard them as satisfactory?

Mr. Bevan: I have not the full terms of the award before me at the moment.

Hospital Sanitary Equipment

Wing-Commander Stevens: asked the Minister of Health if he is aware of the unpleasantness and danger to hospital staffs of the open type of bed pan sluice; and if he will take steps to hasten the installation of the sealed type of bed pan washer as a matter of urgency.

Mr. Bevan: I am advised that this change is gradually taking place, but that any general conversion would not justify the cost involved.

Personal Case

Mr. Kenneth Thompson: asked the Minister of Health if his attention has been drawn to the hardship suffered by Mr. Albert Rogers, of 40, Carisbrooke Road, Liverpool 4, who, although making regular weekly payments to National


Health Service funds is required to pay £17 9s. 9d. for an emergency appendix operation performed while on holiday in France; and if he will defray the cost from public funds.

Mr. Bevan: I am not aware of this case, but I have no power to adopt the hon. Member's suggestion.

Mr. Thompson: Is the Minister aware that there are many cases of this kind, where those who pay into the National Health scheme on a compulsory basis are not able to get any advantage of any reciprocal scheme?

Mr. Bevan: The hon. Member is inaccurate in his facts. How often must it be said that the National Health Service scheme is not based on weekly contributions?

Pharmaceutical Services

Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth: asked the Minister of Health what is the new method about to be introduced of administering the pharmaceutical services more economically; and when the change will be made.

Mr. Bevan: Various measures are under consideration and, if adopted, will be announced from time to time.

Hospital Charges

Mr. W. Fletcher: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that under Statutory Instrument No. 1490, 1948, National Health Service, paragraph 4, two patients are frequently being charged for the same accommodation on one day, as the Instrument insists on each patient paying for each day or part of a day; that he has confirmed this practice by letter to hospital management committees; and whether he will now reverse this decision which works inequitably.

Mr. Bevan: Yes, Sir. It is intended to deal with this point when the Regulations are next amended.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING

Horsham

Earl Winterton: asked the Minister of Health why he has refused to allow the Horsham Urban District Council to permit an increase in the number of houses

erected by private enterprise within its area.

Mr. Bevan: I have not received any request on this subject from the council.

Earl Winterton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a request has been made on more than one occasion? If I send him a copy of the recommendation, will he give consideration to it in view of the fact that some attention should be paid to the views of a popularly elected body?

Mr. Bevan: Yes, Sir, but one popularly elected body cannot have any privileges above any other popularly elected body. If there are cases where licences can be issued, I will bear that in mind.

Earl Winterton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a number of local authorities, particularly in the south of England, have made recommendations to this effect?

Mr. Bevan: Yes, but although they have made recommendations, the House of Commons is still the master in this matter.

Building Controls

Dr. Barnett Stross: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that the relaxation of building controls which came into effect on 1st July, 1948, has resulted in some areas in the diversion of labour from the building of new houses; and what is he doing to remedy this.

Mr. Bevan: I am not aware that the relaxation has led to any appreciable diversion of labour from the building of new houses; I am prepared to examine any particular case which my hon. Friend may have in mind.

Private Building Ratio

Mr. Braine: asked the Minister of Health if, in view of the considerable demand in certain districts for the build-of houses under private licence, he will consider relaxing the present fixed ratio of nine council houses to every house built under private licence, so as to enable local housing authorities in those districts to vary the ratio in meeting their local housing needs.

Brigadier Medlicott: asked the Minister of Health if he will now give local authorities a discretion to relax the


present ratio of nine council houses to every house built under private licence so as to enable local authorities more effectively to meet the particular needs of their own district.

Mr. Martin Lindsay: asked the Minister of Health if he will now authorise local authorities to give additional building licences, not counting against their quota, to owner-occupiers who, with members of their families, are qualified to build for themselves and willing to do so and have the land and approved plans, in view of the fact that such a procedure will make no call upon normal building labour.

Mr. Deedes: asked the Minister of Health if he will now say what changes he proposes to make in the proportion of licences allowed for private building in view of the Government's revised housing target of 200,000 houses.

Brigadier Peto: asked the Minister of Health whether the Government's new housing target of 200,001) houses will mean an increase in the proportion of private licences which local authorities may issue; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. Watkinson: asked the Minister of Health if he is now in a position to make a statement on the granting of additional building licences.

Mr. Bevan: I have considered the provision which ought to be made in the programme for houses to be built for owner occupiers under licence. Experience has shown that in very many districts the claims of those in the most urgent need of houses make it necessary that at least nine-tenths of the houses built should be council houses. In other districts, however, those in the most urgent need of homes may include a greater proportion of persons who wish to build a house for their own occupation. Each authority should consider for itself among those decided to be in the most urgent need, the numbers and needs of the two types of applicant. In order to enable each council to take account of the circumstances of its district I have decided to restore to housing authorities the discretion to issue licences up to a maximum of one-fifth of their allocation where they are satisfied that this is justified by the needs of the applicants. I am prepared

to consider exceptionally applicants from local authorities for permission to exceed the figure of one fifth where I am satisfied that this course is necessary in the light of the evidence submitted to me as to the proportionate numbers and needs of the applicants for council houses, and of the applicants for licences.
It sometimes happens that an applicant living in one district desires to move to another district and to build a house there for his own occupation; by this means a 'better distribution of housing may be brought about by the release of the house in which he at present lives. I am ready to authorise arrangements for making licences mobile, and to agree in such cases that a licence can be issued by the authority in whose area the house is to be built on the understanding that the licence will be chargeable against the quota of the authority for the district in which the applicant at present lives. A circular is being issued to local authorities and a copy will be placed in the Library.

Mr. Braine: While admitting that this is a step in the right direction, and congratulating the Minister on accepting our advice from this side of the House, may I ask him whether he is aware that in many districts the ratio should be nearer 1 in 2, and that the arrangement he has just announced does not go far enough?

Mr. Bevan: If the hon. Member had listened carefully to what I said he would have heard that I am trying to make the arrangement as flexible as possible to meet the varying needs of different districts in various parts of the country. There are some areas where hardly any licences are required, and there are other areas where a higher proportion is required. That is why this arrangement will give greater flexibility.

Mr. Lindsay: Why has it taken the right hon. Gentleman five years to agree that this degree of flexibility is necessary? Is he aware that had this been done at a much earlier stage we should have had many more houses built by now?

Mr. Bevan: The hon. Member will appreciate that the substance of what I have said merely restores the one in five ratio to where it has been almost for five years. Furthermore, the relaxation is now


possible because in many districts the provision of houses has met the needs of a very large proportion of the inhabitants.

Lieut.-Colonel Walter Elliot: Further to the last sentence of the Minister, that in many areas the needs have already been met—

Mr. Bevan: I did not say that. The hon. Friends of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman cheered so enthusiastically that they drowned the last part of my sentence.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Then supposing the Minister's statement to have been that the needs have not been met, can he tell us whether the total allocation of houses is to be increased or whether this is simply a reshuffle of the already too scanty allocation which he has allowed?

Mr. Bevan: That is not the Question on the Order Paper. What I am dealing with at the moment is how to share the available housing programme among various types of applicants.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: This is very important to the House. Do I understand that this means no total increase in the housing programme?

Mr. Bevan: That is not the Question on the Order Paper. Moreover, the housing programme is what was announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget Statement.

Mrs. Braddock: Is the Minister aware that in areas such as Liverpool, where the slum conditions are positively disgusting, any use of materials for building houses for people who can buy while there is still a shortage of houses for people who can only rent will not give cause for any great enthusiasm in the area which I represent?

Mr. Bevan: That is a matter which is entirely at the discretion of the local authority. If the population of Liverpool elect the wrong people they must put up with the consequences.

Brigadier Prior-Palmer: May I warmly thank the Minister for having accepted in almost every detail the suggestions I made in the Adjournment Debate on 24th March? Will he give a further assurance that he will now give effect to the pledge which he gave in the Dome, Brighton, in November, 1949, that he would make

available for sale houses built under the terms of Circular 92 of 1946?

Mr. Bevan: The hon. and gallant Memfber will find that he is mistaken in that matter. The houses to which he referred are those built by private builders for sale to local authorities.

Mr. Gibson: Is the Minister aware that what he has just said about this change will not be welcomed wholeheartedly in other parts of the House? When he is considering applications for more than the one in five ratio will he bear in mind the situation in those towns where private enterprise has never taken up its full allocation?

Mr. Bevan: We shall, of course, take that into account. As I said, that situation will occur only in very exceptional cases. I am not expecting to have to concede many of such applications, because over most parts of the country the demand is still for houses to let.

Mr. Deedes: Having reached this decision, will the Minister do everything he can to ensure that the long delays between the application for private licences and their fulfilment are reduced as far as possible?

Mr. Bevan: In view of the fact that we have always been charged with putting more houses into production than the physical capacity of the industry can bear, there can hardly be complaint against the administration for delay.

Mr. R. S. Hudson: Do the conditions which the right hon. Gentleman has announced also apply to farmers in rural areas who wish to build cottages for their workers?

Mr. Bevan: Of course.

Mr. Hudson: The right hon. Gentleman referred only to persons who wished to build houses for themselves.

Mr. Bevan: There are some instances in which employers wish to build houses and let them, and these will be taken into account.

Oral Answers to Questions — PUBLIC HEALTH

Endemic Goitre

Dr. Stross: asked the Minister of Health if he will give details of the evidence upon which he reached the decision


that the general iodisation of table salts was desirable; and whether he will give figures for the incidence of endemic goitre in North Staffordshire and in Derbyshire.

Mr. Bevan: I am hating the references to the main evidence sent to my hon. Friend. I have no special recent figure for the two areas he mentions.

Dr. Stross: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in parts of Derbyshire 30 per cent. of the school children suffer from endemic goitre, that all of us are grateful for this long overdue reform, and that we thank his medical advisers for it?

Sewage Disposal, Baldock

Mr. Nigel Fisher: asked the Minister of Health whether he will reconsider his decision to postpone the scheme for sewage disposal submitted to him by the Baldock Urban District Council, which his Department has approved in principle.

Mr. Bevan: I have received further representations about the need for the early carrying out of this scheme, and they are now being considered.

Mr. Fisher: Will the Minister bear in mind that the capital expenditure involved in this case is only approximately £31,000, whereas the health of 26,000 people living in Letchworth and Baldock is threatened by the postponement of a scheme already approved by his Department? Will he at least see a deputation and hear the case?

Mr. Bevan: Further representations are being considered at the moment, but this has to be considered against the claims of other authorities as well.

Oral Answers to Questions — EQUALISATION GRANTS

Mr. J. R. Bevins: asked the Minister of Health which two county or county borough councils in England and Wales receive the highest equalisation grants in relation to their total expenditure ranking for grant; the percentage such grants represent; and also the percentage that departmental grants for specific purposes represents.

Mr. Bevan: The two highest equalisation grants are those paid to the county councils of Cardigan and Montgomery of approximately 67 per cent. and 64 per

cent. respectively. Departmental grants for specific purposes range widely in form and amount and cannot readily be represented as a percentage.

Mr. Bevins: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these equalisation grants are paid in such a way as to stimulate authorities such as those to which he has referred into wanton extravagance?

Mr. Bevan: It remains a fact that for the first time for many years some of these authorities are able to take advantage of local authority services; and even after the payment of these grants many of these authorities are still poorer than most authorities.

Mr. George Thomas: Is my right hon. Friend aware that were it not for these equalisation grants local government would become almost impossible in the areas mentioned, and that there is deep gratitude to him for introducing them?

Mr. Bevan: I think that is the case.

Mr. Bevins: Has not the attention of the right hon. Gentleman been drawn to the criticism of these grants made by the Comptroller and Auditor-General in the accounts for the year 1947–48?

Mr. Bevan: These grants are being made on the authority of Parliament after proper consideration, and Parliament is the best judge in these matters.

Oral Answers to Questions — VALUATION EXPENSES

Mr. Bevins: asked the Minister of Health the total valuation expenses of all local government authorities in 1947–48; and the estimated cost of the transferred functions to the Inland Revenue for 1950–51.

Mr. Bevan: The figures are in no way comparable since there was only routine expenditure in 1947–48. In 1950–51 preparations are being made for a complete new valuation of the country. The routine expenses of local authorities on valuation in 1947–48 amounted to just over £11 million. I understand that the Inland Revenue estimates for 1950–51 provide a sum of £2,350,000 for salaries in preparation for the forthcoming revaluation.

Mr. Bevins: Is not it a fact that the Estimate for the Inland Revenue included


some quarter of a million pounds to be paid to panels of outside valuers, to whom part of this work has had to be farmed out because the Inland Revenue has been unable to recruit the necessary staff.

Mr. Bevan: That always was the case. A very large number of authorities used outside valuers in this way. I do not know why the hon. Member is taking exception to it.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF CIVIL AVIATION (RETENTION)

Lieut.Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: asked the Prime Minister whether he will give consideration to the necessity of retaining the Ministry of Civil Aviation in view of the urgent need for economy in the national expenditure.

The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): I have been asked to reply. I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the answer which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister gave him in reply to a similar Question about the machinery of Government, on 27th April. The Ministry of Civil Aviation has been retained as a separate Department because there is a continuing need for it in present circumstances.

Sir T. Moore: But it was not a similar Question that the Prime Minister answered on 27th April. My Question refers to the Ministry of Civil Aviation. If the right hon. Gentleman agrees that aviation is simply a modern form of transport, would it not be wiser to merge these two Ministries into one, and save all the more?

Mr. Morrison: I follow the argument but I would assure the hon. and gallant Member that he exaggerates the amount of saving he contemplates as a consequence. It is a point worthy of consideration from time to time, but we have come to the conclusion that as things are, it would not he a wise step.

Oral Answers to Questions — COMMITTEE ON INTERMEDIARIES (RECOMMENDATIONS)

Sir Waldron Smithers: asked the Prime Minister if he will state in some detail the steps that have been taken to

implement the recommendations contained in the Report of the Committee on Intermediaries, Command Paper No. 7904.

Mr. H. Morrison: I have been asked to reply. Departments have been instructed to give effect to the recommendations of this Committee. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister sees no useful purpose in giving a detailed account of the steps taken in each Department to carry out these instructions.

Sir W. Smithers: Will the right hon. Gentleman ask the Prime Minister if he is aware that under the Socialist policy of State control and centralised administration, bribery and corruption is inevitable, and that the passing of unreasonable laws compels honest citizens to be criminals?

Mr. Speaker: Imputations and insinuations are out of Order.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH SUBJECTS (PASSPORTS)

Mr. William Teeling: asked the Prime Minister in view of the fact that the Secretary of State for the Home Department ceased at the end of 1947 to have the authority under the Emergency Laws (Transitional Provisions) Act, 1946, to decide who shall leave the United Kingdom, and therefore who shall be entitled to a passport, which Minister now decides who can leave the United Kingdom and who is entitled to a passport, and on what authority.

Mr. H. Morrison: I have been asked to reply. There is at present no general power to prevent any British subject leaving the United Kingdom. Travellers intending to visit foreign countries are obliged by the laws of those countries to be in possession of national passports; and while it is possible in theory to leave the United Kingdom without a passport, in practice it is virtually impossible to do so. The question whether a United Kingdom passport may be granted is decided by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, exercising the Royal prerogative.

Mr. Teeling: Does that mean that British subjects who wish to go to Gibraltar or Malta or to the Dominions have also to have a passport? Is it not true that they can travel without passports?

Mr. Morrison: I would not like to answer that without notice. It virtually depends upon whether the country at the other end needs such an instrument to admit them. But I am not sure about that.

Mr. Teeling: In view of the right hon. Gentleman's reply, can we take it that passports are the right of British subjects and, therefore, cannot be taken from them?

Mr. Morrison: No, that is not so.

Oral Answers to Questions — FESTIVAL OF BRITAIN

Mr. H. A. Price: asked the Lord President of the Council what estimate has been made of the total cost of the Festival of Britain; what is the estimated value of tourist trade for the year 1949; and by what amount is it estimated this figure will be exceeded, as a result of the Festival, during 1951.

Mr. H. Morrison: The total net cost of the Festival of Britain is to be not more than £9 million. The estimated expenditure by tourists in this country for the year 1949 was £43.2 million and for 1951 it is hoped that the value will reach the £60 million mark. It is not possible to estimate how much of the increase could be attributed to the Festival of Britain.

Commander Noble: asked the Lord President of the Council by whom will H.M.S. " Campania " be manned during the Festival of Britain; and under what flag.

Mr. H. Morrison: The " Campania " will be manned by Merchant Service officers and crew. As I told the House in reply to the hon. and gallant Member for Bristol, North-West (Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite) on 2nd May, she will wear the Red Ensign.

Commander Noble: Can the Lord President say whether the ship is being manned by a certain line?

Mr. Morrison: I am informed that Messrs. Furness Withy and Co., Ltd., have been appointed as managers.

Mr. Janner: asked the Lord President of the Council what publicity is to be given in overseas countries about the

Festival of Britain and extending an invitation to all residents.

Mr. H. Morrison: The British Travel and Holidays Association, which conducts a world-wide publicity campaign to attract visitors to this country, is giving due emphasis in all publicity media to the Festival of Britain, 1951. In addition, the Festival Office is itself publicising overseas the whole Festival programme. These two campaigns are being closely co-ordinated in order to ensure that there is no duplication of effort.
Press advertising, folders, pamphlets and posters, besides information issued through normal channels to the overseas Press, will publicise Festival events in overseas countries. The Overseas Service of the B.B.C. are also carrying information about the Festival in their programmes, and I am myself shortly recording a brief description of the Festival for the British Council for transmission from overseas stations.

Mr. Henry Strauss: Which of these agencies, advertising abroad, has advertised in America, " The food you get on British Railways will astonish you "?

Oral Answers to Questions — QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Sir Herbert Williams: asked the Lord President of the Council if, in view of the increase in the number of Questions which cannot be answered in the time allotted for Questions because of the increased number of Ministers, he will propose an alteration to Standing Orders to increase the time for Questions.

Mr. H. Morrison: No, Sir.

Sir H. Williams: Having regard to the immense amount of time that is taken in asking supplementary questions, will not the right hon. Gentleman reconsider this matter, particularly as one of his supporters took up two columns of HANSARD at Question Time yesterday?

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE

Sheep Sprays

Mr. Hurd: asked the Minister of Agriculture if, in view of the satisfactory experience in Australia of using high pressure sprays in place of baths for dipping, sheep, he will amend the Sheep Dipping


Regulations to permit farmers in this country to adopt this less laborious method.

The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Thomas Williams): No, Sir, the Regulations in this country requiring sheep to be dipped relate only to sheep scab, a disease which has not existed in Australia for many years. There is nothing to prevent farmers from using sprays when treating sheep for any condition other than scab; but I am not satisfied that, under our field conditions, the spraying of sheep for scab would be as effective as dipping.

Mr. Hurd: Will the right hon. Gentleman have some experiments carried out by the Agricultural Improvement Council, or some other competent body, so that we may know by another year whether this is a satisfactory and economical method?

Mr. Williams: That is worth thinking about.

Pigs Marketing Board

Mr. Hurd: asked the Minister of Agriculture if he has noted the statement of the Pigs Marketing Board that they are unable to make any further progress with their long-term proposals for the marketing of pigs because of the lack of definite Government policy in relation to livestock marketing; and when he expects to make a statement.

Mr. T. Williams: I have noted the views of the Pigs Marketing Board, but I cannot say when it will be possible to make a statement about future policy.

Mr. Hurd: As the Government have had several months in which to digest the Lucas Committee's Report, when does the Minister expect that they will be able to produce their own policy?

Mr. Williams: The hon. Member is aware that the pig producer is, by the policy of the Government, secured of guaranteed prices and assured markets under Part I of the Agriculture Act, 1947.

Mr. Hurd: That does not help.

Land, Worcestershire (Production)

Mr. Nabarro: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he will provide details of agricultural land-use and aggre-

gate farm production for the years 194749, inclusive, in respect of the 300 acres, approximately, of land edged in red on the Gybhouse, Greenway and Gorsthill site plans numbered, respectively, M/9/549/1, M/9/552/1 and M/9/554/1 in the parish of Rock in the Kidderminster Rural District of the County of Worcester; and whether he anticipates any change in the productivity of this area of land during the years 1950–52, inclusive.

Mr. T. Williams: This area includes parts of eight holdings and comprises some 46 acres of permanent pasture, 166 acres of arable, 61 acres of orchard and 7i acres of waste land. About 11 acres are fallow. I will, with permission, circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a statement showing for the three years 1947 to 1949 the estimated total produce sold off the land or transferred to other parts of the holdings. So far as can be foreseen at present there is no reason to anticipate that the 1951 and 1952 production plans of the occupiers of this land will show any significant changes from the current pattern.

Mr. Nabarro: is the Minister aware that the bulk of this land which, for the most part, is highly farmed, is now threatened by opencast coal mining activities? In view of the nature of the land, will be carefully consider refusing the agricultural clearance certificates for it and thus safeguarding essential food production?

Mr. Williams: No clearance certificate has yet been given to the site.

Following is the statement:

Wheat 160 tons; oats 145 tons; other cereals 100 tons; milk 53,000 gallons; cattle 230; lambs 200; poultry 240; pigs 24; fruit and vegetables, no figures available.

Wool (Prices)

Mr. Hurd: asked the Minister of Agriculture if British farmers will be paid current world market prices for this year's wool clip.

Mr. T. Williams: The guaranteed average price for the 1950 wool clip will be 27.05d. per lb., representing an increase over last year's prices equivalent to the whole of the estimated increased costs of production. This figure is not related to world market prices. As regards the


future I would refer to the announcement which I made on 27th October last in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mr. Brook), that if a producers' wool marketing board is set up it will have the opporunity of sharing in any surplus of receipts which it obtains from the sale of wool over the amount guaranteed by the Government.

Hurd: Can the Minister tell us if there is a prospect of a wool marketing scheme being in operation for this year's clip, and if he will do everything in his power to expedite the matter through Government channels?

Mr. Williams: The hon. Member's guess would be as good as mine. If he examines the Estimates for my Department, he will see that we anticipate a possible loss.

Mr. York: Can the Minister say what the current world market price is?

Mr. Williams: It changes week by week and almost day by day.

Mr. Osborne: Since the figure is given in the Board of Trade monthly report, will not the Minister tell the House the comparative world price?

Mr. Williams: In March, 1950, the world price was 38.7d. per pound, but, as the hon. Member is aware, world prices tend to fluctuate. The price paid to the British farmer has no relation to the world price. There is a relation between the price paid for wool and the price paid for mutton here, and the price paid for wool or mutton abroad.

Sir Hugh O'Neill: Can the Minister say what will be the price this year for blackface wool?

Mr. Williams: Not without notice.

Welsh Land Sub-Commission

Mr. Emrys Roberts: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he will give full details of the sums of £7,105 and £1,798, representing salaries and travelling expenses respectively, paid by the Welsh Agricultural Land Sub-Commission in the year ended 31st March, 1949.

Mr. T. Williams: The sum of £7,105 represents the salaries apportioned to

management of the Chairman and members of the Welsh Agricultural Land Sub-Commission, the general staff of the Sub-Commission, and the resident estate staff including workmen. The sum of £1,798 represents the travelling expenses actually incurred on management work by the same groups.

Mr. Roberts: Is not it a fact that these salaries and travelling expenses, which are purely administrative expenses, now exceed the total rents of the Commission, and will the Minister give an assurance that the rents of the tenants will not be raised to meet these purely administrative expenses?

Mr. Williams: I cannot give any such assurance. As the hon. Member is aware, remits are constantly given to the Land Commission and to the Land Sub-Commission to enable them to travel about their area to see, where the Minister is in search of guidance, whether or not a piece of land should be purchased.

Mr. Roberts: In that event, will the Minister tell the House how much is paid to each official of the Commission, including the chairman and other members?

Mr. Williams: It is very irregular.

Fowl Pest

Mr. Turton: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether, in view of the fact that there has been no outbreak of fowl pest in the county of Yorkshire during the last six months, he will amend the regulations so as to permit adult and growing poultry to be sent from Yorkshire to Scotland and the more northern English counties.

Mr. T. Williams: I regret that I am not yet able to add anything to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Skipton (Mr. Drayson) on 27th April.

Mr. Turton: In view of the fact that there have been 167 outbreaks of fowl pest in the last six months in Scotland, is not there something wrong with the regulations which allow Scots chicks to go to Yorkshire and no Yorkshire chicks to go to Scotland?

Mr. Williams: If the hon. Member will look at the reply I referred to, he will find that we expect to make a statement shortly.

Mr. S. Silverman: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that there is considerable feeling on this question in many of the northern counties, including Lancashire, and could he expedite his investigation?

Mr. Williams: Yes, I am fully aware of that. But there is also very grave anxiety in parts of Lancashire, and other northern counties, about the possibility of widespread outbreaks of fowl pest.

Crops (Storm Damage)

Mr. Baker White: asked the Minister of Agriculture if he is yet in a position to make a statement on the extent of damage done to fruit, vegetable and other crops by the storms and frosts of 24th and 25th April.

Mr. T. Williams: With permission, I will circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the statement:

Snow and frost were widespread on 24th, 25th and 26th April, snowfall being especially heavy on high ground in South-Eastern England, while there was hard frost in the Wisbech and Cambridgeshire areas.

Vegetable crops were not seriously affected. Early peas suffered a set back in Essex and Somerset, largely because of the cold winds. There was also some damage to frame-grown crops in one or two areas. It is difficult to assess the damage to fruit so early in the season. Blossom on some varieties of apple, pear and plum trees was badly affected in the Wisbech area and in West Cambridgeshire. Gooseberries also suffered in these districts. Damage was not serious in the other main fruit-growing areas, although snow caused the branches of many fruit trees to break on high grounds in Kent.

Frost damage to the early potato crop is reported from a number of areas, particularly Lincolnshire, but the ultimate effect on the crop cannot be estimated at present.

Land, Pamphill

Mr. Crouch: asked the Minister of Agriculture why he consented to valuable agricultural land at Pamphill being used for a new central school building when other land of low agricultural value is available in the next parish.

Mr. T. Williams: I presume the hon. Member is referring to field O.S. 518. This was not part of an established farm unit before the war, and, while I must say I regret the loss to food production, the choice of any other site meeting educational requirements would have been equally or even more damaging to agricultural interests.

Mr. Crouch: Can the Minister assure the House that in future more careful inquiry will be made before allowing valuable agricultural land to be used for building purposes?

Mr. Williams: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that a very careful scrutiny follows every application for the use of land for non-agricultural purposes.

WYE AND USK RIVER BOARD (DOCUMENTS, INSPECTION)

Mr. Watkins: asked the Minister of Agriculture why the draft order and maps for public inspection for the Wye and Usk river board area under the River Boards Act, 1948, were not made available at the offices of the Brecon and Radnor County Councils.

Mr. T. Williams: The Act does not require the deposit of draft orders and maps at more than one place in each river board area. In the case in question, however, deposit was made at Hereford and at Newport. In addition, a small-scale copy of the map and a copy of the draft Order were sent to each authority on whom notice was required to be served, and copies of these documents were freely available on application. In my view these arrangements were adequate and the deposit of additional replicas of the draft statutory map was unnecessary.

Mr. Watkins: Why is it necessary for Welsh-speaking Welshmen to go to Hereford to inspect maps? Why should not these maps be deposited in the county town of Brecon, which is as important as Hereford?

Mr. Williams: I said that small-scale copies were available to anyone who cared to apply for them.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Churchill: Can the Lord President of the Council inform us whether he has any statement to make today on the conduct of Business next week?

The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): Yes, Sir. The Business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY, 8TH MAY—Second Reading of the Foreign Compensation Bill and Committee stage of the necessary Money Resolution:
Second Reading of the Midwives (Amendment) Bill [Lords]; and
Consideration of Motion to approve the Purchase Tax (No. 7) Order.
TUESDAY, 9TH MAY—Consideration of a Motion relating to the Commonwealth-Burma Loan until 7 p.m.;
Motion to approve the Draft Electricity (Commissioners and Others) (Compensation) Regulations.
WEDNESDAY, 10TH MAY— Committee and remaining stages of the Newfoundland (Consequential Provisions) Bill [Lords]; and the High Court and County Court Judges Bill [Lords.]
Consideration of the Motions tabled by the Opposition relating to the Railways (Additional Charges) Orders.
THURSDAY, 11TH MAY—Supply (13th allotted Day);— Committee.
Debate on Housing in Scotland.
FRIDAY, 12TH MAY— Consideration of Private Members' Motions.

Mr. Churchill: May I draw the attention of the Lord President to the Motion which has been placed upon the Order Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Northfield (Mr. Blackburn) and other leading Members of the House of Commons? May I ask him when he can offer the House the full facilities which would be desired in order to discuss the matter referred to in the Motion?

[That in the special circumstances of this Parliament this House censures the conduct of His Majesty's Opposition in planning Divisions to take place without prior notice thereof and resolves that such conduct is inconsistent with the pledge given by the deputy Leader of the Opposition on its behalf on 6th March, 1950, not to indulge in factious

or fractious Opposition and is calculated to bring Parliamentary Government into ridicule and disrepute and shows an irresponsible and partisan disregard for the interests of the country.]

Mr. Blackburn: Before my right hon. Friend answers that question, may I ask him whether he agrees entirely that, while the Opposition have a perfect right under our Parliamentary system to challenge a Division whenever they like, it is a fact that the calling of " snap " Divisions—

Hon. Members: Order.

Mr. Morrison: In reply to the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, may I say that it is very good of him to take such a beneficent interest in the efforts of certain hon. Members? I am very sorry, but I am afraid that I cannot easily find time for the Motion. With regard to my hon. Friend's point, I fully appreciate his point of view, which any hon. Member of the House has a right to hold, about the tactics of the party on the other side, whichever side that may be. He is perfectly entitled to make the comments he has made. I am entitled to make comments, and so is the right hon. Gentleman opposite. I think that, on the whole, it would be a pity if the House as a corporate body sought to control the tactics of any political party in the House of Commons.

Earl Winterton: Is the Lord President aware that there is a very serious side to this matter, because this Motion not only reflects upon hon. Members on this side of the House, but, inferentially, on the House as a whole, and, surely, he will not deny to the Opposition the golden opportunity which this Motion would afford for discussing the Parliamentary conduct and character of the hon. Members who have put down the Motion, which would make headline news throughout the world?

Mr. Blackburn: On a point of Order. In view of the fact that the noble Lord, with characteristic gifts of courtesy, has chosen to attack my character, may I ask for your guidance, Mr. Speaker, in saying whether I am not in Order in daring the Leader of the Opposition to choose this subject for a Supply Day?

Mr. Churchill: It seems to be another case of flying saucers. May I say that, while we should greatly welcome the Government providing us with such an enjoyable opportunity of discussing the rights of Opposition in this country, nevertheless, we could not consider it worth while to give up one of our Supply Days?

Mr. Paton: May I ask my right hon. Friend if he has given any consideration to the request for a day on which to debate Far Eastern affairs, and, if so, if he could indicate that date?

Mr. Morrison: I hope there will be an opportunity for a debate at no long distant date.

Brigadier Prior-Palmer: Will the Lord President consider providing any time for a discussion on the question of Civil Defence at an early date?

Mr. Morrison: I should have thought that that might be a suitable subject for consideration on a Supply Day. I am afraid I forgot the Supply Day idea on the last point that came up.

Mrs. Middleton: Will my right hon. Friend consider giving the House an opportunity of debating the Report of the Working Party on the building industry?

Mr. Morrison: I think the answer to that is the same as to the last one.

Mr. Emrys Roberts: Could the Leader of the House consider affording a date to discuss the first report of the British Electricity Authority and the area boards as we have not had a debate on electricity since that industry was nationalised?

Mr. Morrison: The hon. Gentleman might recall, on reflection, that I freely, out of the gladness and generosity of my heart, offered three days for debate on the socialised industries. Before it takes place, the point had better be discussed through the usual channels concerning which of the industries should be chosen.

Mr. Henry Strauss: For the information of the House and the guidance of the Press, can the right hon. Gentleman say by which of the forthcoming Divisions His Majesty's Government will be surprised?

Mr. Snow: In view of the interest shown by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, and I think, the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Kelvingrove (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot), in the Festival of Britain, and the continued somewhat unkind remarks of back bench Members of the Opposition, would my right hon. Friend give consideration to the question of time being provided to reconsider the Festival of Britain?

Mr. Morrison: No, Sir. If I might say so, in this respect the atmosphere is steadily improving. Let it improve. A debate will not improve it, but make it worse.

Mr. Eccles: In order that we might know how long we have in which to consult those interested, could the Lord President tell us when the Second Reading of the Finance Bill will be taken?

Mr. Morrison: I am not quite sure, but it will be announced in due course.

Mr. Churchill: It would be a great convenience if we could know fairly soon. We have heard rumours about the middle of this month, but a little more precision would be welcome.

Mr. Morrison: Perhaps, if the right hon. Gentleman will let me know what he is getting ready for, it might influence me in giving a reply which, without that information, I am a little backward in giving.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: May I ask my right hon. Friend if any request has been made by the Opposition for a Debate on housing in England?

Mr. Morrison: That is for the Opposition to decide.

Sir Waldron Smithers: When will the Lord President be able to announce the decision of the Government on the enactment for the nationalisation of the steel industry, because the private firms who have smashed all records cannot now raise money to conduct their expansion-

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is becoming intolerable with his long questions. This has nothing to do with the Business for next week, which is what we are now discussing.

Mr. Blackburn: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this matter of "snap" Divisions not only concerns Front Benchers but the ordinary—

Mr. Speaker: I do not think that question has anything to do with the Business for next week.

Mr. Blackburn: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether he will bear in mind any representations which I hope will be made by the Leader of the Liberal Party?

Mr. Morrison: I understand it is the case that both sides of the House take into due consideration any representations from the Leader of the Liberal Party.

Mr. Churchill: Could the right hon. Gentleman or his ardent supporter say which Division that has taken place in this Parliament could be called a "snap" Division?

Sir W. Smithers: On a point of Order. May I ask your guidance, Mr. Speaker? Although I agree that questions should be addressed to the Business of the House, has it not always been usual to ask the Leader of the House when he expects to introduce a certain piece of legislation, and how long we may have to wait for it?

Mr. Speaker: It has not been the custom to put lengthy arguments in following that course.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered:
That this day, the Business of Supply may be taken after Ten o'Clock and shall be exempted from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House) for One hour after Ten o'Clock."—[Mr. H. Morrison.]

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY

[12TH ALLOTTED DAY]

Orders of the Day — CIVIL ESTIMATES AND ESTIMATES FOR REVENUE DEPARTMENTS 1950–51

Considered in Committee.

[Major MILNER in the Chair]

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a further sum, not exceeding £40, be granted to His Majesty towards defraying the charges for the following services connected with Education for the year ending on the 31st March, 1951, namely:

CIVIL ESTIMATES, 1950–51



£


Class IV, Vote 1, Ministry of Education
10


Class IV, Vote 11, Universities and Colleges, &amp;c., Great Britain
10


Class I, Vote 4, Treasury and Subordinate Departments
10


Class VII, Vote 3, Public Buildings, Great 'Britain
10


Total
£40"



—[Mr. Douglas Jay.]

Orders of the Day — EDUCATION

The Chairman: Before I call upon the right hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler) to open the Debate, I think it might be helpful if I expressed a hope that right hon. and hon. Members will be as brief as possible in their speeches. To my knowledge, there are over 50 hon. Members who desire to speak—quite an impossible number—and if hon. Members will be as short as possible in their speeches it will, at any rate, enable the Chair to allow many more hon. Members to speak than would otherwise be the case.

3.43 p.m.

Mr. R. A. Butler: This is the first time since the passing of the Act of 1944 that I have ventured to open a Debate upon Education Estimates. I feel that the child for which we were all responsible in the Parliament before last has been nearly weaned, but it has now got to the stage when the whole course of its future development is in question. All of us, in all parties, were responsible for this Act, and I am sure


that we all still desire to see it carried out in the spirit, and, as far as possible, in the letter of what we arranged at that time. We all wanted to work it together, and I believe that is still our desire.
I understand that when hon. Members opposite are pleased with the Act, they call it the " 1944 Act," and when they find something which they very much dislike, they call it the " Butler Act." I have nothing to complain of about that because I have had it the other way as well. I recently received a letter from a constituent of mine in the depths of a rural district, which ran as follows:
 Dear Sir, I do not hold with education. Your opponents are telling me they are responsible for all these new fangled and stupid ideas. I am therefore giving you my vote.
That shows that if one remains calm throughout all these controversies which are bound to arise in the education field, one gets a dividend in the end.
We tried, at the passage of the Act, to work out a scheme upon which development plans could be based in the period immediately following the war. We tried to work out a scheme which would set the social pattern of the age in which we live, and in this respect those of us who were responsible foresaw, I think, the times that were coming ahead. Similarly, in the realm of what I want partly to talk about this afternoon, namely, the religious settlement under the Act, I think it would be agreed by all sides of the Committee that it would have been impossible had the old-style dual system continued to operate in the present circumstance. I think it was right to grasp that nettle, and while it was an extremely difficult task—and one which Fisher very wisely neglected to grasp at the time of his Bill at the end of the previous war—I think we may now say we were right to plan on such a large canvas.
Fortunately, at the time of the passing of the Act, I happened to say that this was the work of a generation. That has proved prophetic because there is no doubt that it is going to take a generation to work out the whole scope of the Act in every detail. We cannot, in fact, try to do everything at once. Already we are seeing the chance—and, I fear, almost the certainty—of grave casualities at each end of the school age. I shall be saying a word later about

continuing education and the county colleges. I fear they are being indefinitely postponed, and that, at the other end, many authorities are being obliged to cut their nursery schools which were a subject of such very great hopes at the time of the passing of the Act.
The fact is that we are obliged to concentrate on the sheer physical effort of accommodating the ever-increasing school population. That is landing us with administrative efforts which are of a very great and important character. At the time of the Act, we were particularly interested in the three " A's "—age, ability, and aptitude. Now it seems to me that our troubles are summed up under the three " B's "—the increased birthrate, the unfortunate burdens which are falling upon all concerned, and the overladen bureaucracy which can barely cope with the problems with which it has to deal. It is by addressing myself to these three " B's " that I am enabled to divide up what I want to say.
Before I say anything else, I want to refer to an extract from a book by James Truslow Adams in which he describes a story of a distinguished explorer who spent a couple of years among the savages of the Upper Amazon, no doubt the Amazon with which the Minister is so closely connected in his researches with U.N.E.S.C.O. He was attempting a forced march through the jungle with a company of natives. For two days this forced march continued, and, on the third morning, he was surprised to see the natives sitting on their haunches and the headman refusing to move. He askew them what was the matter. " They are waiting," the chief explained, " before moving farther until their souls have caught up with their bodies."
That seems to me to sum up the whole problem facing us in the educational world today. We are so occupied with the details of physical administration that we have not given time for the souls to catch up with the bodies, and it is to this particular aspect that a large part of my remarks will be addressed this afternoon. While observing your injunction, Major Milner, about not speaking too long, I venture to reflect that, alas, even on this occasion, very few people will devote their attention to the real content of education. I prophesy that nearly all our speeches, including my


own, will be devoted to the problem of administration. If we all fall into that fault, let us remember that the content of education—what is taught, the quality of the teachers, and the inspiration—must be the basis of any national system which is going to work, and that the voluntary schools have a vital part to play in providing a particular inspiration in the midst of the whole national effort.
The bodies, that is the children, are almost too numerous to cope with. I calculate that there will be about 500,000 more school population in 1953 than there were in 1949. This is largely due to the increased birth rate, which reached its peak in 1947 but which will result in an increased school population at about the date I have mentioned. I want first to ask the Minister whether his plans for increasing the number of teachers are sufficiently ambitious to cope with this problem. As I understand it, in his Circular 174 he expected a net increase in teachers of some 41,500, enabling him, as he hoped, to cope in 1953 with the increased number of children in school and with the ever-increasing numbers in the classes.
This means an annual rate of increase of about 8,000 and, as I calculate the figures, the annual rate now is only just creeping up to the 6,000 level. If this is the case, it is going to take at least seven or eight years, instead of the five-year programme, to cope with the increase in classes and to meet the emergency in the rise of school population which he has to face. We want a clear line of policy on this point, both from the Government and from the Central Council.
When we reflect that the classes, of over 40 and many of over 50 in the primary sphere will number 33,000, and will number over 4,000 in the secondary sphere, and when we reflect upon the conditions which exist in these over-numerous classes we must realise that a teacher is not a teacher but a circus master to keep children in order. Proper education cannot be conducted in these circumstances. The size of classes today is a subject which must impress itself upon any Minister or Government. I hope the Minister will give us some satisfying answer about the supply of teachers now that the emergency training is ended.
In the case of building, I calculate that no fewer than 1,450,000 new places will be wanted by 1953. This seems to mean a rate of increase of well over 300,000 new places a year. I gather that a scale of increase of about 135,000 is planned for 1950. If that is the case we have to double and more the number of school places in the ensuing years if we are to hit our target. Therefore, I consider the Minister is right up against a very serious problem if, leaving aside some of the matters to which I referred earlier, he is going to make it possible for teachers to retain that vital principle of all in education—some personal relationship between the teacher and the taught by a reasonable size of classes in our schools.
I am purposely putting these problems quite shortly in answer to your request, Major Milner. I come now to consider the great increase in cost in these Estimates. In passing, I would say that education today actually takes less percentage of national expenditure than it did before the war. It has now dropped to rather less than 5 per cent., whereas before the war it was running at the level of about 6 per cent. of the national expenditure. This is explained, not by economy on the part of the Government, but by the fact that estimates for the social services have swollen to such an alarming extent. The Health Scheme has been allowed to swell almost without any restraint whereas expenditure on education, although it has increased, has not increased in proportion to the national expenditure.
Further, it is a fact which is sometimes forgotten, that the cost of education largely falls upon local government revenue, with the result that local councils, and those of us engaged in local government, are apt to blame education whilst forgetting that the greater part of the rise in the cost of the social services are borne by the national Exchequer and do not fall to such a large extent upon the local rates. Nevertheless, it is the duty of the Opposition to enforce upon the Government the absolute necessity of the maximum economy in the conduct of our education Estimates because otherwise we shall, with the whole range of social service, get into realms which are quite uncontrollable.
I notice that the Minister has decreed that the price of primary school places


shall be £170 with a drop to £140 next year and that secondary places shall cost £290 with a drop to £240 next year. This is a move in the right direction, but I should like to push the Minister further and remind him that in Hertfordshire and, I believe, also in Yorkshire, they can build at figures which are less than those he has enunciated. Every opportunity should be given for cheaper building. As the hon. Lady the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mrs. Middleton) said at Question time, I hope an opportunity will be given to consider the Report of the Working Party on the Building Industry so that we in Opposition can give the Government useful tips on how to reduce building costs.
This question of costs brings me at once to the question of the voluntary schools. It is clear that increased costs are felt very heavily by voluntary school managers. No doubt it is a fact that the estimates made in 1944 are not valid today owing to the increased cost of building and in every other way. One important object of the settlement of 1944 was to give a choice to voluntary managers whether they desired to adopt " aided " or " controlled " status. I understand that 1,480 Church of England schools have already adopted controlled status, as I thought they probably would, and some 670 have already adopted or opted for aided status. The choice, therefore, is beginning to work out. I and my right hon. and hon. Friends on this side of the Committee attach great importance to this choice remaining a real and genuine choice, because that was the wholly British free way of working we adopted at the time of the settlement.
In passing, I would regret the slaughter of the innocents in the shape of little country schools cut out of development plans by local authorities so that they are given no choice to opt whether to be aided or controlled. I impress upon the Minister the vital importance of the small village school. It is an integral part of country life. I express sorrow at the sale of school buildings condemned by the diocese against the wishes of the village. The Minister has power to approve or disapprove of development plans. I appeal to him once more to be extremely careful before he allows these country schools to be cut out of those plans. It was a particular feature of our plan that

the small village schools should be maintained.
Now we come to a far more serious question. The Managers are at present being put in the dilemma that if they opt now for aided status they themselves and those who succeed them may be accepting unascertainable liabilities at an uncertain time. This has caused many conscientious people very great heart-searching. One of the main objects of our desiring a Debate on education today was to press the Minister to make some necessary adjustments within the framework of the Act in order that the Act can work in the letter and in the spirit. I do not know of any subject which arouses more conscientious and heart felt feeling on this side of the Committee than this matter. If I may refer to what I said earlier, there is no better way by which we can ensure that our souls can catch up with our bodies than to give to voluntary schools a certainty of future life.
The voluntary schools, through the inspiration of the teaching which they provide, give something vital to our national character and to our future national existence. I do not believe it is either necessary or desirable to reverse the religious settlement we reached in 1944. This, indeed, I think has been made clear by the Archbishop of Canterbury in a speech which he made on 20th April at Cardiff in which he said that the Church of England warmly welcomed the positive contribution which the settlement made by sections designed to secure a sincere and efficient religious teaching and a daily corporate act of worship by every school in the country, and that it was a settlement fair to all the conflicting aspects of the problem. That is a testimony from the Primate.

Mr. Logan: The right hon. Gentleman said that that agreement of 1944 is not valid today. He said that conditions have changed.

Mr. Butler: I do not think that things are quite so simple as the hon. Member is making out. Perhaps I may proceed with my speech, because I do not think he will have any cause to be dissatisfied with what I say.
In the " Church Times " of 17th March, the Dean of St. Albans, speaking on behalf of the National Society, said that the grant was, in the light of the strange history of


popular education in this country, a genuine and generous offer. Before I refer to the hon. Gentleman's own anxieties about his denomination, looking at it from the Anglican position, I am convinced that had this settlement not been reached it would have been impossible for the Church of England to face its school problem.
I looked up some notes which I made with the late Archbishop Temple when he came to visit me to discuss this matter. At the time the Church of England had over 10,000 schools, of which only 582 had been built since 1902. When we examined together the black list which was then 17 years old, out of 731 schools we found that 543 of those were in fact voluntary schools. We further found that the reorganisation had only proceeded to the extent of 16 per cent. in the case of voluntary schools and 62 per cent. at that date for the council schools.
The Archbishop at that date, backed by his own advisers and friends and since supported by the present Archbishop, came to the conclusion that this was a problem which the Anglicans simply could not face without extra help. It is undoubtedly true today, provided we can work out this point of difficulty to which I have referred, that the choice offered them of a new grant and the option of controlled status has made it possible for the Church of England to face up as it would desire to do to the problems which it had before it. In this connection I would say that had it not been for the pioneer work of the voluntary schools and the denominations we should have had no proper education in this country. It is because they stepped into the breach at a time when the State would not take a proper interest in education that they have been landed with this hideous problem.
I must tell the Committee that in my experience it would be very unwise to underestimate the gravity of any proposal to re-open the whole issue of the settlement. There is more than one side to this question. We heard a great deal from one side in the General Election, and we all answered it according to our consciences, because these are matters of deep conscience and we on all sides of the Committee should acknowledge that. But it must also be realised that there is another side; in fact, there are many other sides to this problem. For example,

just before speaking I received a most urgent communication from the National Educational Association representing the Free Churches, who besought me to realise that if any radical alteration in the settlement were advocated or were carried through by the Government, that would land the country back in some of these hideous quarrels and quite unnecessary disputes which would vitiate the whole future course of our educational development.
Further, another principle from which we never departed in 1944 is that all denominations must be treated the same. For example, there is no difference of conscience between an Anglican in Lancashire who feels that the children in his school must be Church members, as was put to me so eloquently by the Bishop of Chichester at the time of the settlement, and the Roman Catholic position which is in fact almost exactly the same, except perhaps that the Roman Catholics desire an even more marked religious atmosphere to prevail through the whole course of the day's curriculum. But there is no difference in essence. Therefore, it would be impossible for this Committee to try to promulgate a settlement which dealt with only one denomination, because they would immediately be in trouble with the others.
Further—and this is equally important —it is, in my opinion, quite wrong in education to deal with these matters unless the partners in education are brought into negotiation. By " the partners " I mean the local authorities who have strong views on this subject, which I have taken care officially to ascertain before speaking at this Box this afternoon. They support what I say about the danger of reversing the basis of the settlement. Further, there are the teachers, without whom it would be impossible to conduct the education system of this country. There are, as I have said, the Free Churches and there are the various denominations. I am convinced that if any alteration of any sort is to be made it must be made with the agreement of the partners in education. If that be achieved, then I think a lasting settlement would endure.
Here I would like to say that I have been able to notice by the contracts which I am fortunate enough to have that there is a very much better spirit abroad about


the need for co-operation between the partners concerned. The denominations realise it, and I believe the Minister has a real opportunity here to face up to existing problems and to extend the settlement, with any adjustments necessary. with the agreement of the partners concerned. I should like to press the Minister to take this opportunity and to do what is needful in the interest of all concerned.
At the time of the passage of the Act and at a late date before it was finally passed, I decided that it was necessary to introduce into the Act some loan provisions of an exceptionally generous character. I do not mind saying that they were not put in with the easy agreement of His Majesty's Treasury at that date, but they were negotiated with a view to helping the denominations. They are included in Section 105 of the Act. I want to appeal to the Minister to see that those loan provisions are properly used in the interests of the denominations, with the object of spacing out the liability which managers have to undertake and rendering possible the acceptance of more distant and uncertain liabilities by making them less onerous.
This is an extremely complicated subject, but it is quite clear that some modification of the procedure outlined in what is known as Form 18 will be necessary, and I therefore appeal to the Minister in his answer, or at a suitable date when he has finished his negotiations, to give us some assurance that he will press forward on these lines. Without going into too much detail, there is a variety of procedure. Either this matter can be settled on a diocesan basis or by negotiation with individual managers. I understand that the Anglicans prefer to negotiate on a diocesan basis, and that the Roman Catholics, on the whole, prefer to negotiate on a basis of parishes, because the self-sacrifice of the parishes in a Roman Catholic community is really most remarkable. I believe, with the hierarchy, that the matter must be negotiated on a parish basis. The Minister can, at any rate, tell us if this is the fact.
The Anglicans have evolved a scheme which is called the Barchester scheme, presumably after Trollope. I always thought that Trollope's wisest phrase was, " Don't marry money but go where

money is." I presume that the Barchester scheme is framed with the idea of going where money is. If that be the case, I wish the Anglicans well in proceeding tc' negotiate on this diocesan basis. What it broadly comes to is that managers are only asked to provide an annual premium of one-quarter of the liability charge, on the understanding that a general insurance scheme is entered into for a diocese and the diocese accepts liabilities in a broad geographical area and for an indefinite time. If that be the case, perhaps the Minister would describe in more detail how these liabilities can be so arranged that managers can face up to them today.
There is an alternative, that the negotiations should take place with parishes or individual managers. I understand that it would be possible to devise a scheme whereby for projects which are not due under the development plan for a few years, say 10 years, only a proportion of the loan charge would be required from the managers. Old ultimate projects, which are to be deferred for an indefinite time might, according to what I have heard from one side and another, be able to be accepted at a liability of some quarter of the loan charge. If that be the case, then a manager or a parish undertaking to state whether they are able and willing to undertake the liability would at least know that their liability is much reduced and is reduced in proportion as the project is in the near or distant future. If the Minister can work out a plan of that sort, it would be worth while for the denominations to examine it and for the other partners to approve it.
There are other methods. The Archbishop mentioned legislation in his speech at Cardiff and there has been mention on the part of the Anglicans of a special aided status involving a 75 per cent. grant. This involves the surrendering of some of the right to appoint teachers. My own feeling is that the denominations would be most unwise to subtract anything from the freedom of the present aided status. If the denominations start conceding the appointment of teachers they will take away that atmosphere which they so earnestly desired at the time of the past negotiations. Therefore, I would not advise the denominations to back any plan which takes away from the liberty of the aided status and takes away from the liberty of the


school from their point of view. As the State encroaches more and more on our being, the voluntary schools should choose a status which gives them the maximum liberty and the choice of appointment of teachers, however great the difficulty may be in finding the necessary funds.
Then there is another department of discussion, whether the liabilities could not be repartitioned between the authorities and the managers. That, in my view, might mean the re-opening of the settlement, and if so it could only be done by agreed negotiations. For example, I heard of a proposal from the Church of England that sanitation, not being a religious subject, should be removed from the purview of the school managers and given back to the authorities. I have heard a point of view expressed by the Roman Catholics that the Roman Catholic responsibility should be confined solely to the classrooms. I believe that discussions on these lines are not certain to be successful, and I should prefer to stick by the repartition of responsibilities as agreed in the settlement and to make more helpful the financial terms which the managers undertake.
I, therefore, press upon the Government the desirability of reaching a settlement within the framework of the Act without, unless there is agreement among the partners, any legislation on minor points. I must press the Government to take action on this matter, otherwise I do not think they will hold a position which is not so easy as it looks on the surface. I think it is vital for the Minister to act, and to act with imagination, on lines somewhat like those I have laid down.
There are one or two other matters I want to mention before I resume my seat. These extra costs which fall so heavily on the voluntary schools also fall very heavily now upon the teachers. There is no doubt that the remuneration of the teachers today is far from satisfactory. The teachers' profession is a profession, as was so ably put at the N.U.T. annual conference by the Secretary, Mr. Gould; it is not a service. It is vital in our view that the teachers should remain a profession and be free to take part in the various public activities in which they are so interested. They are finding that their basic rates compare most unfavourably

with many other occupations, and their higher rewards are failing to attract sufficient recruits.
I hasten to assure the Minister that I do not think, nor do my hon. and right hon. Friends, that there is any easy solution of this question. Nor do I think it right for an individual Member of Parliament to state exactly by how much he would wish the teachers' salaries to be increased. This is a matter for the negotiating machinery of the Burnhatn Committee which has been set up for the purpose. I understand, however, the authorities are looking sympathetically at this problem, and it is the local authorities who will have to bear the main burden of any increase if it be granted.
I hope, therefore, that local authorities will adjust their spending programme so that the human element receives first priority, even above the building. In that case those who provide the inspiration of the teaching will be properly rewarded. If I may give any opinion, I would say that we must approach this subject from the basic salary, which is unsatisfactory. The primary teacher, in view of the size of classes, is having a tough deal at the present time. Then we must take into account a variety of incentives for heads of schools, for those who do especially good work, for those of long service, and so forth, so that incentive rewards are given not only to graduates but also to those who have done good work for the teaching profession.
I have noted in a report of the Headmasters' Association on mathematics, physics, chemistry and biology, that in a list of some 777 schools—a few of which are independent—there are 62 per cent. of the vacancies unfilled in mathematics alone, and the position in biology and physics is to the extent of 65 per cent. and 40 per cent. of the vacancies being unfilled. There is a real crisis in science teaching in our grammar schools due to the extra reward being offered by industry and to other causes. It is essential not to take the advice that Samuel Pepys gave to the captains of his ships when he told them to take with them:
A godly divine as chaplain and to pay him as mucb respect to his function as could be shown without increased charge to His Majesty.
I am afraid that if we adopt that principle we shall not get a satisfied and contented teaching profession.
I have three more points which, in view of your request, Major Milner, I will make quite briefly. The first is the need to face up to the fact that, if we do not take care, the continuing education of young people between 15 and 18 will fall by the wayside again as it did in Fisher's day. This would mean that for the second time the nation had gone back on an Act of Parliament which had been passed amidst wide approval. I believe it will be extremely difficult to build county colleges but I believe we can use far more than the Government have done hitherto the voluntary effort of industry to provide continuing education for the people within their ranks, and not under their own aegis but with the aid of the local authorities.
During these five years I have deliberately tried an experiment in a firm in which the employees number over 20,000. We have now provided continuing education for every young person in that firm with the aid of local authorities in six or seven different parts of England. I can tell hon. Members I have learned far more from that practical experiment than sitting all the time in the ministerial chair. I recommend that type of experiment to the Minister because I believe we have to call in voluntary effort in this sphere and in the sphere of the local authorities to take the place of the overburdened bureaucrat.
In regard to the universities and technical colleges, no doubt in a future Debate there will be time to develop the many points I should like to make, but I will now merely ask the Minister or his Parliamentary Secretary to give us a final view as to the number of students he proposes shall receive awards at the universities. Most hon. Members have received a circular from the National Union of Students. It is not clear to what extent the Minister proposes to accept the working party report. We do not seek numbers for the sake of numbers in our universities, many of which are overcrowded. We do seek adequate candidates, adequate outlet for the quality available, and adequate grants and remuneration to those who are there.
In regard to technical education, I will simply say this, that the universities are having pressing upon them many who are looking for higher technological courses. I do not believe that it will be

possible indefinitely to expand the universities of this country. We shall have to put up beside them other institutions which give technological training, without at one and the same time falling into two errors; the first, having confusion in the different type of awards that are granted, and secondly, trying to mix up two staffs, one giving technical training and the other higher technological training in one department. The Minister will have somehow to try to resolve this. I understand that a royal institute or society of technology has been suggested to make awards. If that is so let it avoid the confusion which I have stated, and let the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary try to give some further guidance on this matter today.
I myself feel that, as the Percy Report recommended, we shall have to introduce into this country at least one experiment—and, I hope, later two or three—of the higher technological college such as exists in America, such as exists in Holland, and such as exists in other countries, because in that way not only do we open up a further outlet for further education, but we stop the pressure on the universities and we avoid the uncertainty of mixing purely technical training with higher technological courses.
I have attempted to obey your command, Major Milner, and I hope the Minister will do likewise, and I will conclude by telling the 'Minister the advice given by George Borrow in " Lavengro," that he should follow resolutely the straight path before him.
 Bound along it if you can. If not, on hands and knees follow it, because if you turn into other paths to have a momentary advantage or gratification you will have sold your inheritance and your immortality.
The priceless feature of education is that it combines the traditions of the past with the hopes of the future, and the Minister has it in his power to carry on with our old traditions and yet keep alive those hopes of the future which we had in 1944.

4.22 p.m.

The Minister of Education (Mr. Tomlinson): Let me, first of all, say how pleased I am to have the opportunity of taking part in a Debate on the Estimates. I do not object to being reminded right at the beginning that we should cut down the time or length of our speeches. However, one does find it a little hard if, having cut down the length of one's


speech and left out the subjects which are of most importance, one is chided afterwards for the fact that, though we have had a Debate, the Minister had nothing to say. I have a lot to say today, and if I were to say it all, it would take a long, long time; but I realise that other hon. Members want to take part, too. There are some things of paramount importance with which we should deal.
I, too, regret, as the right hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler) also regretted, that it is so difficult to discuss education in a Debate on the Education Estimates. I have never yet been able to succeed in this Chamber in making a speech on education. I hope some day to have the opportunity of doing so. Today I am bound to deal with the questions of administration, because they are possessing the mind of every Member of the Committee, and many people are very concerned about them. I feel that I should first deal with the question of the voluntary schools, which has been referred to by the right hon. Gentleman.
Let me say, first of all, that I welcome the right hon. Gentleman's remarks about the maintenance of the settlement embodied in the 1944 Education Act. We are fortunate in this country that this question of denominational schools is not a party matter. There are members of all Churches on both sides of the Committee and in all political parties. Differences of opinion on the treatment of church schools cut across all political divisions. We can, therefore, discuss these problems more freely and, I hope, more sincerely, than is possible, I believe, in most countries of the world at the present time. This is an important advantage, and I, personally, should deplore any attempt to bring this issue into the hurly-burly of the ordinary political platform. At the last election there were, I believe, some attempts in this direction. I do not believe those attempts did the cause of the Church schools very much good, and I hope they will not be repeated.
I think that the country and the education service owe a great debt to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Saffron Walden, to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, and to all those others who helped them in the intricate and

lengthy negotiations which led up to the 1944 settlement. Today the right hon. Gentleman has reaffirmed his view that this settlement should be maintained. For my part, the longer I stay at the Ministry of Education the more I appreciate the delicate balance achieved in the settlement of the religious problem which was em- bodied in the 1944 Education Act.
I am convinced that we should start our discussion today on the basis of some words which the right hon. Gentleman himself spoke in this House last July when we were debating the Estimates. Perhaps I may remind the Committee of what he said:
 No doubt many of the denominations are finding it difficult to meet the costs under the present situation. Nevertheless, all denominations must find the rise in costs equally disturbing, and I would therefore beg the right hon. Gentleman to make no fundamental alteration in the general principles governing the religious settlement under the Act. I am not convinced that if the subject were raised again, we should reach so amicable a settlement as we did on that occasion." — [OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th July, 1949; Vol. 166, c. 2029.]
Ever since I have been Minister of Education I have taken the line, and announced it as my policy on various occasions, that I intended to do everything I could for the Churches within the framework of the 1944 Act, and to treat all denominations alike. I have realised of course, all along that the Churches would not find it easy to carry out the obligations which the Act, with all its provisions for new help to Church schools, still left them to carry. However, for reasons which are fairly well known, the Churches are finding it difficult to carry out all the obligations which they wish to assume, for I would point out that it is the Churches who choose to assume the obligations: they could be taken over by the State, but at a price which the Churches—rightly, I feel—are not prepared to pay. Naturally, therefore, they seek some alleviation of the burdens which the 1944 Act requires them to carry if they seek to retain full control of their denominational schools. I do not blame them for seeking this alleviation, but I do want to remind the Committee, before I come on to discuss more detailed matters, that, compared with their position before the war, the Churches gained enormous advantages from the settlement in the 1944 Act.
It may not be known to all Members of the House that before the Act came


into operation the entire cost of external repairs and of improvements to existing Church schools, and the entire cost of all new Church schools, other than what are now called special agreement schools, fell upon the denominations concerned. The new Act gave the denominations a choice. As the right hon. Gentleman said, it was intended to give them a choice.

Mr. Leslie Hale: There is, I think, one point which needs correction. Surely the state of affairs my right hon. Friend is referring to is the state of affairs before the 1936 Act, and not immediately before the 1944 Act.

Mr. Tomlinson: Yes. I covered that by mentioning the special agreement schools.

Mr. Hale: But they were not then special agreement schools.

Mr. Tomlinson: No, but they became special agreement schools as a result of the passing of the 1936 Act which was intended to deal, as I think everybody realises, with only one problem.
The new Act gave the denominations a choice. They could surrender part of the Church's control of a school and in return be relieved of all expenditure connected with the school, though they could still retain ownership of the property and certain rights with regard to the appointment of teachers and denominational religious instruction. The other alternative offered to the Churches allowed them to retain the denominational character of the school unaltered while benefiting from public funds to the extent of 50 per cent. of the cost of external repairs of existing schools and 50 per cent. of the cost of improvements or of new school buildings if these were needed to replace existing accommodation.
The fundamental principle of the whole settlement was that public money should be available to assist the Churches to provide up-to-date accommodation for the pupils already attending voluntary schools, but that no public money should be available for the provision of new and additional Church school accommodation. In other words, public funds might be used to help the Churches to bring their schools up-to-date, but not to extend the sphere of denominational education. It should, however, be remembered that the 1944 Act carried forward a large

number of the so-called special agreements which will considerably assist the Churches in meeting their needs on very favourable terms. That is the effect of the 1936 Act.
Apart from the very considerable sums of money involved in the grants to Church schools which I have mentioned, the denominations obtained other advantages in the 1944 Act which are often overlooked when this question is being discussed. For example, the Act included new provisions for the payment out of public funds of the cost of transport to schools selected by parents for their children on denominational grounds. In applying these provisions of the Act it has in some cases been necessary for the Ministry to compel local education authorities against their will to grant benefits to which I thought the parents concerned were entitled, and I have not hesitated to do so.
There are other provisions in the Act which have enabled parents to obtain assistance towards the fees of their children at denominational schools. These are new elements in our public education system, and it should not be forgotten that they represent very real advantages to the Church communities. All these things are, of course, additional to the running costs of the voluntary schools, including all the teachers' salaries, which have been entirely paid for out of public funds for many years.
I have spoken at some length about the background of this problem as I see it, because without understanding the background one cannot usefully discuss the detailed proposals which have been put forward from various quarters in the last few months. If the Committee will bear with me, I will now say something about these proposals.
The ideas that have been discussed fall under three heads. First of all, there was a proposal that we should cut the knot of this problem and adopt something on the lines of what is generally called the Scottish system. This would involve, in fact, complete provision of denominational schools out of public funds without any effective transfer of control from the Church to public authorities. It would involve complete revision of the denominational provisions of the 1944 Act, which of course we cannot discuss on a Supply Day. It would involve some


sort of religious test for teachers. It would arouse again all the old difficulties and controversies about the single school area. I do not think that this solution is in the least likely to be acceptable to the opinion of the majority at the present time.
The second set of proposals which has been in people's minds lately is concerned with the higher costs of school building compared with the costs as they were estimated six or seven years ago. It is, of course, true that the costs of school building—as of other kinds of building —have risen considerably compared with the pre-war costs, or even the costs in 1943 or 1944. But I would remind the House, in the first place, that the possibility of such an increase was in fact foreseen when the 1944 Education Act was being debated.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Saffron Walden himself said on the Floor of this House during the Debates on the 1944 Act that no undertaking could be given that the financial arrangements for voluntary schools could be altered in the event of a general rise in building costs. He pointed out that if building costs rose, so also would the funds from which those costs would be met. This has, in fact, happened. There was, therefore, never a guarantee that an increase in wage and price levels would necessarily lead to a review of the financial arrangements embodied in the Act.
It is true that the building work will be spread out over a longer period than was foreseen in 1943. But it seems to me that this should place the Churches in a more favourable position to meet their obligations rather than in a less favourable position. It does, after all, mean that they have a considerable period of time in many cases in which to collect funds to meet their ultimate liabilities.
Then again, a great deal of the anxiety which the Churches feel about their ability to meet their liabilities is based on the cost of school building between 1946 and 1949. I have already taken steps to amend the building regulations in some minor particulars. A completely new set of building regulations is being prepared, and by this and other methods it has been shown that in 1951 we shall be able to

build schools at a cost 25 per cent. below the average in 1949. This must represent some easement of the burden on the denominations, and no one can be certain that the 1951 level of building prices will be maintained indefinitely. I, personally, shall be sorry if we do not get prices lower still before very long; and I commend what the right hon. Gentleman said about one authority which has been building below these prices by the application of new methods
I do not think, therefore, that there is any justification at the present time for tampering with the financial provisions of the Act. There have been proposals for grants to be increased as the right hon. Gentleman said, from 50 per cent. to 75 per cent., and there have been other suggestions which would have the effect of shifting part of the Churches' present liabilities on to public funds.
All these changes involve a considerable departure from the principles of the 1944 settlement. That settlement, as I have said, represented the highest common factor of general agreement as recently as 1944. No one can yet be certain that these arrangements will not prove satisfactory for the Churches in the long-run. Therefore, I say, let us not jeopardise the whole stability of the voluntary school system by interfering now with something that may very well—and I believe in fact will—work out all right in the long-run.
Finally I come to the problem involved in what is known as " Form 18 Schools ", or, in other words, the procedure by which I have to satisfy myself as Minister that the managers of an existing voluntary school are both able and willing to carry out the commitments involved in aided status.
Let me say that on this point I have a good deal of sympathy with the Churches in the difficulties which they find in giving assurances that they will be able to meet their share of the cost of modernising their schools at what may be an uncertain point in an uncertain future. I can see their point, and I have done my best to meet it. Various statements that have been made about this problem have given the impression that this Form 18 which the managers have to complete requires a formal guarantee of the money required. This is not so. It is explicitly stated on the form that:


It is well understood that statements under Head 4 and 5 cannot in the nature of things attain the financial certainty of statements relating to income from endowments. They are not therefore to be regarded as guarantees. They will be read as sensible, probable and moderate estimates of the funds which it is reasonably hoped to raise.
Moreover, my Department have all along set out to administer this part of the Act in as liberal and reasonable a way as possible. There is no question of using Form 18 as a means of whittling down the number of schools granted aided status, or, as some people have suggested, administering the schools out of existence.
We should also remember that the Form does not require the managers to undertake to raise large sums of capital. Managers need only show their prospects of raising, by the time it is needed, their share of the capital or of the annual charges on the capital required for modernising the school and their share of the cost of external running repairs.

Mr. Logan: Mr. Logan That will be without payment?

Mr. Tomlinson: I am coming to that later.
It may well be true that the major alterations to the school buildings will not be carried out for many years, but it seems to me that this should make it easier rather than harder for the managers to find the money when the time comes. They will, after all, have a number of years in which to collect funds, before any substantial liabilities fall due. Nevertheless, as I have said, I do see the difficulties which the Churches feel about this Form 18 and I have, therefore, proposed to them that we should administer this matter in a way which will, in my view, substantially meet the point that is made.
What I am prepared to do is to assess their ability to meet their obligations by reference to a sort of sliding scale. In other words, the criteria applied to their statement of resources on Form 18 will be progressively more lenient according to whether the work is likely to be done within two years, in under 10 years or in more than 10 years. Where the work is to be done within two years—that is to say, where the work is included in a building programme or is expected to be included in the next building programme —it is clearly reasonable that the managers should be able to find the neces-

sary money to meet their share of the loan charges.
Where the work is not going to be carried out within two years but is likely to be carried out within 10 years, I propose to ask the managers for information about their prospects of raising 50 per cent. of their share of the capital charges_ In a more remote case again, where the rebuilding of the school is not likely to take place within the next 10 years, I am prepared to grant-aided status if the managers can show a reasonable prospect of being able to raise 25 per cent. of their share of the capital charges. Where a number of schools are grouped together for these purposes under a diocesan scheme, I am prepared to regard all the schools as eligible for the most favourable treatment.
Let us look at the effect of this scheme in a hypothetical case. Suppose we have a two-form entry primary school which is to be entirely rebuilt almost immediately at a cost of £80,000. Let us assume that the managers' share of this cost will be £40,000, the remainder being met by an Exchequer grant. The annual loan charges on £40,000 would be about £2,000 a year for 30 years at the present rate of interest.
It is important to realise what this annual charge of £2,000 represents as a burden on the community concerned. At a conservative estimate, a two-form entry primary school would serve a community of at least 5,000 people. The annual contribution per head of this community to meet the full loan charges on the sum of £40,000 would be only about 8s. a year. I repeat, 8s. a head a year is the charge on individual members of the Church community to cover the loan charges on a sum of £40,000 which would represent the Church's contribution to the cost of replacing a large primary school. But if the school is not to be rebuilt within the next 10 years—and this is the case with regard to the vast majority of them—the managers need only show that they can raise 25 per cent. of their share of the loan charges—that is to say, about £500 a year, or about 2s. per head for the community supporting the school.
I hardly think that burdens on this scale can be called unreasonable or intolerable in these days, and I sincerely believe that on this basis the difficulties which the Churches find in completing


Form 18 Schools evaporate. At any rate, I say, let us give this system a fair trial before we risk upsetting the 1944 settlement.
Now let me come to the question of building, to which the right hon. Member for Saffron Walden made reference, and about which he asked me several questions. I have already referred to the long number of years which will inevitably pass before we can complete the vast amount of building work required by the development plans of the local education authorities. No doubt the Committee will expect me this afternoon to give some account of the educational building programme.
The first point I want to emphasise to the Committee is the rate at which the school building programme has expanded during the last three years. During 1946 the total value of educational building work started was about £7 million. Three years later, during 1949, a total of £58 million worth of work was started on the ground. That is an eight-fold increase. The most significant thing about it is that only in 1949 were the authorities able for the first time to achieve a level of activity as high as that allowed them by my Department in accordance with the national investment programme. In other words, it was not until the end of 1949 that the local authorities were able to build all that I was prepared to allow them to build.
It is important that the Committee should realise this fact, because we have heard so much about cuts in the school building programme. In fact, most of the so-called cuts which have been advertised in the Press were not cuts in any building programme in the real sense of the word, but reductions in the inflated estimates made by authorities of their capacity to carry out school building work. Up to the end of 1949, the amount of school building started in any year has been limited not so much by any restrictions imposed by the Ministry as by the capacity of the local education authorities to carry out their part of the preparatory work, and in some cases in the earlier years by shortage of materials.
I do not want it to be thought that I am blaming the authorities when I say this, because I understand fully the great difficulties which they have had to face

in building up their technical and administrative staffs after the war. It may also be true that some individual local education authorities could have carried out more building work than they have been allowed to do. But over the country as a whole the position is as I have described it, and the ability of the authorities to do all the work that we were prepared to allow them to do was not reached, I repeat, until 1949.
Whatever the difficulties which have had to be faced, the school building programme has fallen short of what is needed. Of course, it has. I should be the last to say that we had all the buildings we wanted, but we have had all the buildings we could get in the circumstances and conditions. When it is suggested that we should have more school buildings, it is the duty of someone to point out to us what it is we should go short of in order to have more school buildings.
The right hon. Gentleman seemed to indicate in his speech today that, if necessary we should sacrifice buildings for a better paid teaching profession. I do not think we can afford to do that, because we want somewhere in which a well-paid profession, when we get it, will be able to teach. Do the critics of the size of the building programme want more houses, more factories and more power stations? Something has to go short if we are to have more school buildings. As I pointed out last year, I believe that in the light of the economic circumstances, for the purpose of meeting our educational programme, we have received at the hands of the Government what I consider to be not only reasonable but generous treatment.
In last year's Debate on the Education Estimates the Opposition made a big point about the selection of priorities. Of course, within the educational building programme we have all along been working to a certain scheme of priorities. We have had to recognise that the first claim on our resources must be the meeting of our statutory obligation to provide full-time schooling for all children between the ages of five and 15. This means providing a very large number of additional school places, partly for the increased numbers of children coming into the schools as a result of the higher birthrate of recent years, and partly to meet


the needs of new housing estates. We have also set as one of our priority objectives the improvement of facilities for technical education.
Perhaps I may say something about each of these priorities and how we are succeeding in achieving our objectives. I hope that because I give some realistic figures I shall not be accused of complacency. The last thing anyone can accuse me of is complacency about these things. But the facts are there, and I think they ought to be given. I make no apology for being optimistic; I make no apology for presenting the programme in an optimistic and realistic way. Our figures and those of the right hon. Gentleman vary very little.
We estimate that between January, 1947, and the end of 1953 a total of about 1,150,000 new school places will be required. Towards this total we had, by the end of 1949, actually brought into use about 350,000 new places. In 1949 alone 165 new schools were brought into use, compared with 55 in 1948. To those who may quote the figures for one year as an indication of how we are reaching our target, I would point out that this work is cumulative. The local authorities did not get into their stride until 1949—if the right hon. Gentleman had taken 1948 instead of 1949, it would have shown that it would take five times as long to reach our objective.
Another 310,000 places will be provided by work actually under construction on the site at the end of 1949, or approved for a start early in 1950. The amount of work under construction at the end of last year was £70 million worth, which included 665 new schools. That gives us about 660,000 places towards the total. The programme already approved for 1950 and small jobs to be done this year will provide another 185,000 places. And so, we have a total of about 300,000 places to be started in 1951 and during part of 1952.
Looking at the country as a whole, therefore, I think there should be no great difference between the number of school places available and the number of children to be taught. But, in individual areas there may well be temporary shortages of accommodation. This will largely be due to the fact that in some areas the rate of housing development

has not been sufficiently clearly foreseen, with the result that school building has lagged behind house building, and in some areas the local education authority has been less well able than others to speed up their school building programme. In some areas they have deliberately used the labour that was available for the building of houses rather than of anything else.
May I say a word now about the economies which I had to make last autumn as a contribution to the reductions in Government expenditure, which were necessary on account of the economic situation? My main object, when I had to find some savings in the educational programme last September, was to avoid slowing up progress in the main part of the programme which I have just summarised. That is why I decided that several very desirable but less essential things had to give way to the urgent need for more school places and for extension of the facilities for technical education. This is what the setting of priorities means. It means that we have to do without some things we want in order to get a greater number of those things which are essential. We could just not go on with all the things we wanted to do and at the same time maintain the momentum of the school building programme.
All the saving that was necessary in this part of the programme was achieved by getting the same number of places for less money, that is to say, by getting better value for the money. This economy drive in school building, about which the right hon. Gentleman spoke, did not begin last year. I have been working at it for quite a long time. I referred to it last year when we were discussing the Department's Estimates. In view of the shortage of time I cannot go into all the details, but I want to give the figures for 1950. We believe that, by the adoption of these new methods suggested in the building bulletins we have sent out, it will be possible to get a greater number of places for less money. If it should be asked later on why we have not done this before, I would point out that it is a result of the research that has taken place during the last three years, and that it is something which might have been thought about during the last generation.
In 1949, primary schools were costing on the average £195 a place and secondary schools £320 a place. But remember that when an average is taken it follows that there are cases below the average line as well as above it. The striking fact about post-war school building is that some of the best postwar schools have been built far more cheaply than some of the poorer quality ones. In fact, reducing the cost of school building does not necessarily involve reducing standards. For 1950 the ceiling prices will be 121 per cent. lower than the 1949 average—£170 for primary and £290 for secondary. This means in practice that we shall get 170,000 places in the programme for £36 million instead of £42 million. For 1951 we are sure we can get a further saving of some 121 per cent. The ceiling prices will be £140 for primary and £240 for secondary.
With regard to the advice of the right hon. Gentleman, if it is found that these figures can be lowered without interfering with the efficiency of the building and the amenities of the school, then I should not hesitate to lower even this figure. The size of the 1951 programme has not been settled. I want to point that out because in many local newspapers accusations have been made that there has been a cut. There has been no cut because the programme has not yet been determined. What has been decided is that the authorities should be given the power to go on with the urgent part of their programme, leaving the remainder to be approved at a later date. There is no intention of economising in that direction.
The right hon. Gentleman raised the question of county colleges, and on that I should like to say a word. Everybody realises that it would be impossible in the present situation to introduce the part of the Act relating to those colleges. We have attempted to follow to some extent the lead that the right hon. Gentleman has given in industry by appealing to employers to release for part-time study the youngsters who are employed by them. I cannot find the figures at the moment, but there has been a big increase in the last two years in the numbers available. Employers more and more are seeing the benefit and advantage of it. We are utilising all the space that is available, sometimes in co-

operation with the employers themselves. in order to develop this voluntary side of what may be described as further education between those ages, and we shall go on doing so because I should hate that this Clause in the Act should suffer the fate of some of the Clauses in the Fisher Act of 1918. I believe that the purpose and reality of these Clauses cal be kept alive by the development of this voluntary side.
May I say a word about advanced technological training which the right hon. Gentleman mentioned. I do not want to go into it in too much detail, but as he and the Committee know I set up an influential committee to inquire into this matter. They have been going into it, and although they are not quite ready to put forward a solution to this problem, or to provide their conception of the solution, they and we realise its urgency. When I am called upon to decide the matter what I should like to put forward to the Committee is that somewhere, somehow and some way, those individuals from the workshop floor who reach the higher levels of attainment by utilising their leisure time for the purposes of study, should receive a reward that is comparable with the degree that can be obtained at a university. How that can be achieved at this stage I do not know, but surely it is a desirable objective.
I wish now to say a word about teacher training and supply, because this, next to building, is perhaps the most important thing of all. At the end of the war we had to face a situation in which the training machine, at any rate as far as men teachers were concerned, had been virtually suspended, and large numbers of elderly teachers who had remained in service beyond their normal retiring ages were about to with- draw from the schools. On the other hand, the raising of the school leaving age, the increased numbers of children to be expected as a result of the higher birth rate, and the higher standards of staffing which were demanded, all indicated the need for a considerable increase in the strength of the teaching profession as compared with the position before the war.
Fortunately it is easier to improvise a training scheme than it is to improvise a large building programme, and as a con-


sequence of the Emergency Training Scheme we are, in fact, in a better position as regards the supply of teachers than we have ever been before. I think it is important that the Committee should realise this because a great deal of the publicity that is given to the shortage of teachers tends to give the impression that the situation is getting worse rather than better.
The Emergency Training Scheme has so far turned out about 20,000 men teachers and 9,500 women. By the time it ends the scheme will have produced altogether about 23,000 men and 12,000 women—a total of 35,000 teachers. Twenty-seven of the 55 colleges which were in action at the peak of the scheme are still open as emergency colleges but most of these will be closing down in the next few months and the whole scheme will be at an end in the summer of next year. It was necessary to expand the normal training machinery to provide for the greater post-war needs of the schools, and arrangements have been made to this end.
While the output of the Emergency Training Scheme was at its height the strength of the teaching profession was increasing at the rate of 8,000 to 9,000 a year. This rate of increase is neither possible nor necessary as a permanent arrangement, but the number of permanent training places has been just about doubled compared with the pre-war figure. When the Emergency Training Scheme finishes I expect that the increase in the strength of the teaching profession will continue at the rate of some 4,000 to 5,000 a year. Of the 55 emergency training colleges, 20 will have been taken over for normal two-year training colleges by this coming autumn. By this means and others the number of places in the normal training colleges has been increased to about 11,000 this autumn compared with about 5,000 before the war.
There is, I am glad to say, widespread concern about the number of over-large classes. I am really glad to say this because it means that public opinion is more alive to the necessity for what is. in my opinion, the most important of all educational reforms—a reduction in the size of classes. But it needs to be remembered that before the war the regulation maximum figures for the size of classes were 50 for elementary schools and 40 for secondary schools. Now the

maximum figures are 40 for primary schools and 30 for secondary schools. It is easy to carry out a reform of this kind on paper, but not nearly so easy to achieve it in practice, especially after six years of war, when the training machine has been run down and the strength of the teaching profession has been reduced.
I hope that public opinion will remain sensitive on this point and that members of this Committee who press for a reduction in the size of classes will support the Government and the Minister of Education in finding the amount of extra money—and it will be a substantial amount—that will be needed to reduce all classes even to the maximum figures now laid down in the Regulations—and we shall need to do better than that eventually.
However, in spite of all the war-time and post-war difficulties, the ratio of teachers to children is now better than it has ever been, and the numbers of teachers are still increasing proportionately faster than the numbers of children in the schools. There are some serious difficulties in maintaining this rate of increase, which I have not time to go into this afternoon. I ought to say, however, that my plans provide for an increase in the strength of the teaching profession from the present figure of about 211,000 in primary and secondary schools to rather more than 230,000 in 1954. I would ask the Committee to compare these totals with the position as it was at the end of 1945, when the whole of the teaching profession in primary and secondary schools numbered no more than 173,500.
As a matter of fact by 1954, in nine years altogether, we shall have added something like 60,000 teachers to the sum total of teachers available. In connection with this matter there is the problem of the utilisation of more men teachers in the schools, because we have not sufficient women teachers to meet the requirements of the situation. The proportion of men to women teachers in our schools will need to be increased over what it has been, although local authorities have done well in that direction.
Finally—and I must hurry on—I would say a word about university awards. This is a question about which I know that hon. Members have received a great deal of correspondence. If they multiply their correspondence by 625 they will have


some idea of my correspondence on this subject, and I have also had to answer a number of Questions about it in the House. It is natural that there should be some anxiety, now that the Further Education and Training scheme is coming to an end, lest the number of awards at the universities should fall too low to secure an adequate supply of suitable students, or that suitable students might be prevented from entering universities by lack of means.
I think that every Member of the Committee will agree that without the further education and training scheme the great expansion in the university population which has taken place since the war would not have been possible. Up to the end of 1949, my Department had made more than 83,000 awards under the scheme, of which nearly 44,000 were held at universities and university colleges. The proportion of university students receiving assistance from public funds had risen from a little over 40 per cent. before the war to about 70 per cent. The total cost of the scheme to my Department up to the end of the last financial year was more than £42 million. This is a large sum of money, but I do not think that any Member of the Committee would grudge it.
The results of the scheme, both in enabling thousands of individuals to realise their ambitions and in securing a supply of qualified men and women for the various professions, have been of incalculable value to the community. What is more, it has meant keeping faith with those people who were called up during the war when the promise was made to them that their national service would not interfere with their opportunity for university education. That is the most important thing of all.
Now the question is being asked: " Will the arrangements which will replace the Further Education and Training Scheme be adequate to maintain a university population of the post-war size?" As the Committee will remember, I appointed a working party in 1948 to consider these arrangements, and the recommendations of the working party have for the most part been accepted by the Government. Most of the letters which I have received, and I venture to say which hon. Members have received,

about the arrangements for the current financial year are based upon two misunderstandings. First of all, it seems to be assumed that the state of affairs which the working party envisaged after the ending of the Further Education and Training Scheme is already upon us. This is not in fact true. This year we expect to make about 2,000 new awards under the Further Education and Training Scheme, so that there is no case for bringing into operation this year all the recommendations of the working party.

Mr. Pickthorn: " This year " meaning the academic year ending at the end of July, or meaning the financial year.

Mr. Tomlinson: The financial year.

Mr. Pickthorn: Thank you, very much.

Mr. Tomlinson: The fact that we have these 2,000 awards to make renders it unnecessary to bring into operation at this stage all the recommendations of the working party. The 2,000 awards, under the further education and training scheme, together with 1,050 State scholarships and about 1,300 supplemental awards, will exceed the recommended number of State and open scholarships which the working party regarded as a reasonable total for the period after the Further Education and Training Scheme had completely closed down.
Another point where the present situation differs from that envisaged by the working party concerns the four-year grants for intending teachers. The calculations of the working party were based on the assumption that the four-year grants would be abolished. They will be abolished, and I personally hope they will be abolished fairly soon, but this year they will continue to exist to the number of some 1,300. This must be borne in mind in considering how far the university population will be maintained under present arrangements.
The second important misunderstanding in most of the letters I have received is based on the assumption that the figure of 7,000 local authority awards recommended by the working party is a maximum. The working party's calculations, as the Committee may remember, were based on an annual intake into the universities and university colleges of about 16,000 students from England and


Wales. From this number the working party deducted the number of students which they thought would either obtain assistance from trust funds and other private sources or would be ineligible for grants from public funds. They put this figure at 5,000, but it was always recognised that it could only be an estimate. This left a balance of 11,000 awards, made up by 4,000 from State and supplemented open awards and 7,000 from local authority awards.
If the figure of 5,000 students requiring no grants from public funds should prove to he an over-estimate, there is provision for the number of local authority awards to increase. In fact, I am glad to be able to announce that the local education authorities and the universities have recently worked out together a procedure which is based on the principle that students accepted and recommended by universities who are otherwise eligible shall be considered for local authority awards without any limit on the numbers.
This is a great advance on anything that has existed before, and I think the local education authorities generally deserve to be congratulated on the fact that already the figure of more than 7,000 has been reached. It is very encouraging that more than half of the local education authorities have adopted the new financial basis for awards recommended by the working party and adopted by my Department for State scholarships. Considering that the administrative memorandum recommending this change to the local education authorities was only issued six months ago I do not think it is bad going that more than 50 per cent. of the authorities have responded. I hope that the remainder who have not responded will do so, for this reason, that two individuals in the same university from two different authorities may find it difficult to understand why one of them should be penalised by his allowances being not so great as the other's.
There remains only one question on which I want to say a word—or rather not to say a word—and that is teachers' salaries. I know that other Members of the Committee will probably want to speak about it. It is laid down in the Act that the negotiating body is the Burnham Committee. The teachers have given notice to that committee that the agreement under which they are working

will end next year. I know that the Burnham Committee will be meeting shortly to thrash out this problem. Therefore I can say nothing about it, except that last year, on his appointment to the Governorship of Ceylon, Lord Soulbury resigned from the Chairmanship of the Burnham Committee. I am now glad to be able to announce to this Committee—this is only a nomination, as the appointment has to be made by the Burnham Committee—that I have nominated Sir Malcolm Trustram Eve as the new Chairman of the Burnham Committee. I know that hon. Members of this Committee will join with me in wishing him success in his work.

5.20 p.m.

Mr. Oakshott: Rising to make my maiden speech, I hope that the Committee will accord to me that indulgence and kindness which hon. Members have so generously shown to others who have gone before me. I approach this rather frightening ordeal with all the more trepidation when I remember the very high standard of the speeches of other hon. Members who have gone before me. I will remember the Chairman's request, and be brief.
There are only two matters in connection with this very wide subject which I want to mention. Both have been mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler) and the Minister. They are matters in which there is undoubtedly hardship and where there might well be injustice. One was the last point mentioned by the Minister, the question of teachers' salaries—the rewards which the teaching profession get for their work. I feel that there is among large sections of this great profession a sense of grievance and a feeling that their remuneration is' entirely out of line with that of other professions, of the salaried members of the community and of the industrial workers. Upward adjustments to meet, in some measure, the rising cost of living have been made for others but these people have lagged behind.
As my right hon. Friend said, men and' women enter this profession because they have a genuine call for it, and, if they are to fulfil their great task of providing proper education for our children, of giving our children the right outlook and of bringing them up to take their full place in our society. it is essential that


the teachers should feel that they are being treated fairly in comparison with their fellow citizens. I do not think that we can say that that feeling is generally held at the present time, and if we are to secure the men and women of really high quality for this great profession, as we must, we have to show that it offers both a status and a scale of remuneration which compares fairly with other sections of the community and that where hardship, real or comparative, exists, sympathetic consideration will be given to the alleviation of it.
I will give the Committee two examples of what I have in mind. I know of a young man, a former draftsman, who is now a schoolmaster. He is aged 27 and is married and has one child. His monthly cheque, after deduction of tax, insurance contribution, and superannuation, is just over £26. If he had remained a draftsman it would be over £32. I know another case of a young man of 30 who was formerly a senior administrative officer in the Royal Air Force. He is married and has a child. His gross monthly cheque now as a school teacher is £35 2s. If he had remained in the Royal Air Force it would be between £60 and £70.
The importance of restraint in demands and expenditure—the Government should not be excluded from that—is well known, but it is a fact that the remuneration of teachers has not kept pace with the general rise in earnings. I believe it to be right to say that between 1938 and 1948 the income of the average wage-earner rose by about 94 per cent. while the income of schoolmasters rose by something between 52 per cent. in some cases and a maximum of only 65 per cent. in others, which leaves schoolmasters both relatively and actually very much worse off having regard to the rise in the cost of living.
I do not believe that these are the conditions under which we can expect to attract the very best people into this honourable calling. We have the negotiating instrument of the Burnham Committee, and I do not for a moment suggest that we should upset it—it is perfectly true that the parties are bound until April next year—but I believe that this is a case which merits serious and urgent consideration, and I feel that many in the teaching

profession think that this is all very remote and all rather slow, whereas their need is immediate. I believe that the Minister could hurry up the operation of the Burnham Committee now, and I hope that he will give serious thought to it.
As to the question of economy, I know how difficult this is, but I sometimes wonder whether there are not sums individually small but large in the aggregate now being spent in which saving could be effected. For example, the Minister might think it worth while to have an examination made into the price now being paid for some of the material and equipment for our schoolrooms. We could expect these to be higher than they were before the war, but when we see increases in almost every item from penholders and blotting paper to notebooks and monthly return forms of anything from 200 per cent. to 1,500 per cent., one begins to suspect that here is an avenue of possible saving, even if only a small one, which could be explored.
I should like to say a word about a subject which has been in the minds of so many of us, that of the voluntary schools. To follow my right hon. Friend, I believe that these schools have an absolutely vital place in our national life. I do not think we can do without them. No one could help feeling a deep and sincere admiration for the work they do, for the standard of education which they produce and for the outlook which they give to our children. I believe that parents are entitled to ask that their children should be educated and brought up by people with like views to their own. I also believe that the religious beliefs of parents should play a prominent part in the school life of the children.
As my right hon. Friend and the Minister have said, it would obviously be wrong to treat any one denomination or church in isolation. All the voluntary schools must be treated alike. I should be sorry to see the settlement in the 1944 Act upset, for that settlement, as has been said, was arrived at as the result of the united efforts of all parties under the wise guidance of my right hon. Friend. Nevertheless, it is true to say that since that settlement was made there has been a fantastic and, I still believe, unforeseen rise in the cost of building which has made the figures envisaged in the settlement completely unreal. If the building


under the various development plans were carried out at the present level of costs the position of many voluntary schools would become impossible and in many cases the managers would be so placed that they could not possibly apply for aided status, and there would be a risk that the schools would lose their independence and freedom, which I should regard as a disaster.
It is obvious that a very great deal of this building cannot be carried out at the moment, and probably cannot be carried out for many years, but under this Form 18, which it has been said this afternoon has been modified, the managers have to indicate now their willingness and ability to find the money which, in any case, they would not have to spend for a very considerable time. That seems to me to be unfair. They are asked to commit themselves to a debt which today is crippling, but which in days to come could be and would be lessened by a further reduction in building standards, if that is possible, and as time goes on, as I believe, a drop in the cost of building. I hope very much indeed that, after we have had an opportunity to study in detail the information about the modification of this Form, which the Minister announced this afternoon, we shall find that it will ease the grievous burden which lies upon the managers of so many voluntary schools and will help to safeguard the future position of these schools in our country.

Mr. Leslie Hale: The hon. Member for Bebington (Mr. Oakshott) has just concluded what is notoriously an ordeal, although he showed no sign that he was passing through an ordeal as he spoke. I am sure that he has endeared himself to the House by revealing at once the two qualities which are especially calculated to endear anyone to both sides of the House; the first was brevity and the second was clarity of utterance. I am in a singularly happy position, in heartily congratulating him, for in such a position it is not everyone who can say with sincerity, as I can say, that he finds himself in agreement with almost every word of the speech. It must be rather a privilege to one who passes these congratulations to be able to say that. It almost reconciles us to the temporary loss of our Solicitor-General.
I always address the Committee with genuine diffidence, but I address it with even more diffidence today because I am embarking on a somewhat uncharted political sea, and I do not regard myself as one who has had a very high standard of education. We hear in these Debates much about suffering from overcrowded schools, but I suffered from a singular form of overcrowding; I had the privilege of going to a good school, now a very much better school, but when I was 15 years of age the headmaster wrote to my parents and told them that he had come to the conclusion that there was not even room in the school for the two of us. He added, in the best of good humour, that he had decided to stay, and I lost the chance of ever completing an education and had to drift into those avenues, like law and politics, open generally to people without any capability for a steady and industrious contribution to the world.
I gained some experience later, because, when I was 22, I was made a governor of the same school, with the same headmaster, and then I had a much fuller and freer opportunity of discussing those technical defects in the administration of the school which had been impressed upon my mind seven years before. I was also a member of the county council education committee, which made very marked contribution in those days on the question of the agreed syllabus, and I had the privilege of gaining some experience in these matters.
There are one or two points to which I should like to refer before coming to the subject to which I intend to devote most of my limited time. First, on the question of teachers' salaries, I think it is manifest in all parts of the Committee that there is very real disquiet about this question. We accept what the Minister said—that the Burnham Committee is there, that application is made, and that really nothing can be done until the Burnham Committee have sat to consider the matter; and that, therefore, in a sense, perhaps any sort of agitation by us would really be unfair to the Tribunal which has to consider the question.
But even after my own warning to myself, I must say that one views this situation with genuine disquiet, that salaries have fallen out of all proportion to those of many other occupations and that


the difference between the qualified man occupying a key job, and a responsible job, and one who is not is surprisingly low. We on this side of the House have often urged the necessity for a wages policy. Of course, one cannot have a wages policy without a profits policy and, as you would observe, Sir Charles, with your usual accuracy, a profits policy is right outside the terms of the Debate today, and I cannot pursue that line.
There is one other matter I want to refer to the Minister today and it is the question of the call-up of students who intend to qualify for the teaching profession. The first point, and the first real difficulty, is this: an 18–months' period of compulsory service means that the poor student will have some six months' complete halt in his life of no use to him and no use to anybody else—the six months when he is waiting. Unfortunately, his call-up is so worked that it is frequently 18 months and not six months, because he has no means of being certain of getting admission to the appropriate training college. He is accepted provisionally for the university without knowing whether he will finally get to the university, and there is very real hardship caused to parents and students by this aspect of the matter. I think administratively that could be overcome; I think it would be possible to arrange for some training colleges to end their academic year at one time in the year and for others to end at another time. If my right hon. Friend talked with his customary persuasiveness to the Minister of Defence I think he could get a little more concession out of him in cases where a man has only a few weeks to go to complete his service.
But that is not the end of the matter. What are these people being called up for at all? What are they being conscripted for? They will not be called up in the event of war; they will be in an exempted occupation, so that there is really no point at all in calling up these students. I put it to the Committee—and this is a view which I am sure is shared on all sides, although we find it so difficult to put into practice—that money spent on education is every bit as important as, indeed is much more important than. money spent on defence. Indeed, money spent on religious education is a very

effective form of defence, because if the ethical concepts were spread more widely we might have a most vital means of avoiding war.
I feel that this is a matter to which the Minister should direct his attention for I cannot see the purpose of calling these people up for military service at all. I have no objection to military service as such, although I know that some of my hon. Friends have. My own son is at the moment a conscript in the Royal Air Force and I believe he is getting as good an education there as he got anywhere else in the course of his life, but I cannot see the use of calling up these students in circumstances like this unless it is intended that ultimately and in certain circumstances it shall serve a useful purpose.

Brigadier Prior-Palmer: Has the hon. Member any idea what are the numbers?

Mr. Hale: I have no idea, but I am quite sure the Minister knows.
I want to turn to a point which no doubt will occupy a good deal of this debate. I entirely agreed with the right hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler) when he said that we should be discussing the content of education. I would most heartily and cordially agree that if we could set apart a whole day for the discussion of that limited subject it would be a wise thing. We on this side of the Committee would urge that there could be no more useful discussion. It seems to me that the problem to which the right hon Member for Saffron Walden devoted part of his time, and to whose comments my right hon. Friend replied, is one which is exercising the minds of so many of us at the moment, and it is one to which we have a duty to apply our minds. It is, of course, the subject of the denominational schools.
I do not want to introduce for a moment a note of controversy into this discussion. I am most reluctant to do so, for I feel that anyone who introduces any controversy into this discussion is serving no useful purpose. I want to deal quite briefly, however, with the historical aspect of it, because I do not understand why there should be reference to the 1944 " settlement " at all or to the 1944 "agreement" at all. There never was an agreement and there never was a settlement. I seem to see a look of incredulity


on the face of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, who was Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Education at that time and who shared with the right hon. Member for Saffron Walden the credit for that very fine Measure.
The right hon. Member for Saffron Walden referred to the history of this matter. Before 1870 all schools were voluntary schools and the pioneer work in education was done in the denominational schools. Then, there was that 32 years break during which no assistance of any kind was given, and then we came to the Act of 1902. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will forgive my drawing his attention to it, for he frequently refers to it as the 1902 settlement. Dr. Clifford and his followers never regarded the 1902 Act as a settlement of the matter, as the whole history of the period of passive resistance will show, and there is no more ground for suggesting, as far as the denominational schools are concerned, that there was a settlement in 1944 than there are for suggesting that there was a settlement in 1902.
The opinion of this House in this matter was taken in 1923. The Resolution that was then passed was by no means an unimportant Resolution. It was to this effect:
That the present system of imposing upon the Catholics of England …
I want to say at once that in dealing with this matter I am speaking for nobody. I have no direct personal interest in this matter. I represent a constituency in which there are a large number of members of the Churdh of England, a large number of Nonconformists and a large number of Roman Catholics, spread about equally, I should think, amongst the constituency. I was first approached about this matter during the recent election by representatives of the Church of England, who were gravely distressed about it, and since then I have had information from the Catholics. It may well be that some of the information which I put today may be based primarily upon the Catholic case, just as the case of the right hon. Member for Saffron Walden was based primarily upon the Church of England case—I presume, for the very simple and sane reason that that is the source from which a good deal of information has come to each.
The Motion was:
That the present system of imposing upon the Catholics of England the burden of building their own schools is contrary to religious and economic equality, and that the system of complete educational equality existing in Scotland should, with the necessary changes, be adopted in England."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th April, 1923; Vol. 162, c. 2200.]
That Motion was carried nemine contradicente in 1923. It was moved by Mr. T. P. O'Connor, himself a Catholic, of course, and a very popular and highly respected Member of the House. It was seconded by Mr. Sidney Webb, a name that, I think, can be heard with very great respect on this side of the House and one which would hardly be likely to be associated with any Motion without very careful consideration and thought.
Then came the 1936 Act. I intervened in the speech of my right hon. Friend to say that that Act certainly had altered the position. There was a vagueness about the 1936 Act, and the Committee will remember that Liverpool came along for a special Bill to remove that vagueness, because authorities were saying that they did not have to contribute the 50 per cent. or the 75 per cent. as provided by the Act.
Then there came the 1944 Act. I have read carefully the long Debates, stretching over, I think, 21 days; I did not have the privilege of being here. It is right, first of all, that we should remember the atmosphere in which those discussions took place. The right hon. Member for Saffron Walden was introducing a Measure which was almost universally welcomed, which had many acts of generosity for denominational schools, and which he presented with very great ability, obviously with sincerity, and with the enthusiasm with which he spoke today; and he was supported by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.
There was talk of challenging Divisions time after time, and of votes of confidence in the Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill); but there was a war on and there was a real desire not to challenge Divisions. But it is perfectly certain that time after time speakers on all sides of the House, if there were sides in those days in that sense, urged that there had been no acceptance of the position so far as the denominational schools were concerned. I culled from the eloquence of


my right hon. Friend the Minister of Works

The Deputy-Chairman (Colonel Sir Charles MacAndrew): I take it that the hon. Member is advocating some change in the law.

Mr. Hale: No, Sir Charles.

The Deputy-Chairman: Then, what is he doing?

Mr. Hale: I am about (1) to express approval of the proposals made by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Education so far as Form 18 schools are concerned; (2) to ascertain from him what administrative changes can be effected to cover certain matters that I desire to put; (3) to make it quite clear, to follow up my argument, that there has been an inaccuracy about talking of a settlement or agreement in 1944; and (4) to voice a certain amount of pious aspiration, which I will not too fully particularise in view of the possibility of being out of Order.
I am well aware that this particular flower which I cull from the oratory of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Works will, perhaps, be met with more enthusiasm on the other side of the Committee than on this side. It may be held either as showing his prescience or that he entertained unnecessary forebodings. My right hon. Friend, in voicing some doubts about the future, said:
We do not know what the future holds. We are not quite sure about the Government, and future Governments. There may be all sorts of funny people at that Box.—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th April, 1944; Vol. 398, c. 1920.]
I am sure that hon. Gentlemen who took part in that discussion will know that what I am saying is abundantly true, that time after time my right hon. Friend the Minister of Works and others threatened to challenge Divisions on this matter. There was talk of Divisions, there were pleas for alterations and concessions and, indeed, the right hon. Member for Saffron Walden from time to time undertook to consider matters and to report.
I want to be quite fair about this. I do not suggest for a moment that the right hon. Member for Saffron Walden did not make his position abundantly clear, or that he did not set it out quite fairly and did not make it clear in the end that the particular concessions

which were asked for were not to be given. But I do not think that my right hon. Friend was completely fair in his account of the matter. I know, however, that he cut out many passages of his speech and that, therefore, in compressing it he may have missed out matters of importance.
The right hon. Member for Saffron Walden based his financial arguments on a computed increase of 35 per cent. over pre-war in building costs for school places. So far as I remember, the figure of the cost of school places before the war was about £50—my right hon. Friend will correct me if I am wrong; and a 35 per cent. increase on that means about £17, bringing it up to £67. Today, my right hon. Friend is talking about a figure of £170; in other words, an increase of eight times as much. Even if it is true that a Division was not finally challenged or that unanswered pleas went out, it is abundantly clear that an increase of eight times in the burden on a voluntary organisation is a burden that that voluntary organisation cannot bear.
I am not for a moment challenging the provisions of the 1944 Act or the decision to carry on with the dual schools. Indeed, I feel that some of my hon. Friends on this side who disagree with me on this matter forget that the dual position is accepted; that the arguments against a dual position are now archaic and have gone. However sincerely those views may have been held—and there was something to be said for them—those arguments have gone. We now have the position of the acceptance of the dual school.
The second argument which is put so often is that, after all, the State is paying such an enormous percentage of the cost that the remaining percentage is re latively of no importance. But if it is of no importance in that respect, it is of no importance in respect of the Budget. It would mean, so far as the State is concerned, assuming only a comparatively small increased burden to deal with this problem. The burden which the State may legitimately bear may be a very heavy burden for a community of something like 2,500,000 of His Majesty's citizens to bear, particularly when, as I think is generally accepted, in general they are not among the most wealthy members of the community.
The right hon. Member for Saffron Walden talked in the concluding stage of the 1944 debate about a figure of from £9 million to £10 million. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Works talked about £10 million. This figure is now somewhere from £50 million to £80 million, and it is a fantastic increase. Over the years between the wars, the whole cost of education to the Catholic community was of the order of about £3,500,000 over 25 years. These figures are so out of proportion that they are inconceivable. They raise a problem, not merely for the Catholic or Anglican community, but a very real problem for the educational policy of the Government; because if we are in a position in which we cannot carry out a policy, a position in which it is impossible to do so, it is exceedingly difficult to see what can be done without some alteration.
I would just like to say one or two other things, if I may, to my right hon. Friend. He has today announced substantial concessions—I think that they are very substantial—in respect of Form 18 schools. I am sure that announcement will be very welcome. I have to admit frankly that I did not follow altogether clearly in my mind precisely what those concessions amount to. As I understand the matter—I hope my right hon. Friend will correct me if I am wrong—Form 18 schools are the whole of the schools in respect of which applications for maintenance and repair grants are concerned. Do I understand that those same concessions apply to replacements?

Mr. Tomlinson: Form 18 applies to all schools. Form 18 is the form under which aided status is granted.

Mr. Hale: Then I understand that that very substantial concession will apply in the case of all rebuilding of existing schools—in the same locality, of course.

Mr. Tomlinson: Yes, Sir. And to transferred schools.

Mr. Hale: I am very much obliged to my right hon. Friend. Although it is impossible at this short notice to compute the magnitude of that concession, it is obviously a large one and one which will be very greatly valued.
I have taken more time than I wanted and I apologise, but I must mention one

other question. That is the new school, what my right hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) called " the brand new school." We have never had a definition of the brand new school and do not know what it is.
I have quoted the case of Corby. That is a very special problem. The Committee are well aware that in Scotland none of these questions arises. Catholics pay their taxes, Catholics pay their rates and Catholics have their schools, but in Corby, where a great new town has been erected since about 1934 and where there are thousands of Catholic parents who have come to work at the great new steel plant from all over Britain and many from Scotland and from Northern Ireland, the necessity arises to build a school and because they have not all come from the same place there is no grant at all. When the right hon. Member for Saffron Walden introduced these proposals, and made them perfectly clear, I do not think any of us could quite visualise the sort of redistribution of population and of industry which has taken place as a result of war and that the problem would arise on quite so large a scale. I ask my right hon. Friend to consider this particular aspect of the matter.
I sincerely hope that no one is talking of voting on this issue tonight. It is quite clear that negotiations are taking place and my right hon. Friend has most carefully considered the matter and is really trying his best to find a full and complete solution. I am told that although there were the fullest and most complete consultations with the Church of England and the Free Church Council and with the Catholic hierarchy, never in the course of those negotiations—I am sure the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Saffron Walden will correct me if I am wrong—never until now have all the people interested in the denominational schools been brought together round one table. There is still the problem of the single school area. [Interruption.] I think it a very good thing that we are discussing this matter in a different atmosphere, very different from that even of 1944 and certainly very different from that of 30 years ago. It is certainly a different atmosphere when I as an agnostic, and an avowed agnostic, can put a plea for religious tolerance and religious freedom in a way which will be


accepted by most hon. Members in this House interested in this problem. I suggest that my right hon. Friend could do a great deal of good if he gathered round the table all those interested in denominational schools for a free, full and frank discussion to endeavour to find an agreed solution to this difficult problem.

5.55 p.m.

Viscountess Davidson: When the Butler Act became law, it received the approval of the whole House and most of the country. It was regarded as a great Measure showing vision and imagination. It was a longterm plan and, in view of the position after the war, no one expected that it would be put into operation immediately in its entirety, but we all hope to see built upon it a complete system of education worthy of our great country.
I do not believe that the administration of the Act has been given the careful consideration which it needed. There has been too great haste in some matters and too much slowness in others. First, local authorities have been urged to push forward and the next moment retrenchment has been the order of the day. How can plans be made that are efficient and economical when there are continual changes? The position of the local authorities has been difficult and not altogether satisfactory.
We all realise that teaching is a very great profession. Not only is it a profession but it is a calling and a vocation, and the influence of the teacher cannot be measured because it lasts through the whole of the life of the individual and can result in good or bad. It is obviously true that the responsibility for the child is first of all that of the parent, but the teacher comes next. The combination of the two should be very close, but sometimes it is true that the teacher has the greatest influence. The moulding of the character of the child is in the teacher's hands and for that reason we must be able to call on the best men and women to come forward. We must be able to attract the right kind of teacher.
I have great sympathy with the claims of the teachers today. They are not well paid. I do not believe that the majority of the teachers really think first of money. They think first of their profession and

of their calling, but they must live. They must keep up a high standard. They must look nice, they must set an example, they must have a certain position in the locality where they live and they must be able to keep up decent homes. They cannot do that if financial worries are overwhelming them as they are today.
I hope to see, one day before too long. equal pay for men and women doing the same work. Many of us are very anxious about the elder children who, since the raising of the school-leaving age, have stayed on until the age of 15. Many thousands have not been occupied and have wasted much of their time. That is not the fault of the teachers. The classes are too large and we all know that children of over 14 require quite different handling and teaching from those under 14. Many parents have expressed their anxiety. It is an age when these children want to be fully occupied and kept constantly interested. It is a very real and serious problem, and one which at present I do not see being solved. It is obviously impossible for teachers to keep that personal touch with the children as the classes are today.
I suggest that there are certain improvements which could be made in the conditions under which teachers work. The rooms in which they rest and the sanitary arrangements and so on may appear to be small things, but they matter and could make a great difference. If we cannot have new buildings, there are some comforts which could be introduced into the old buildings.
I wish to say one or two words about the teaching of religion. No country can survive unless it is founded on religion. I sometimes fear that we are becoming a pagan country. This trend must be stopped. We must give our children the religious upbringing and background which is their right. We all realise that in the Church schools—Established, Free and Roman Catholic—religion plays a bigger part in the life and in the teaching of the schools than is the case in the State schools. We are very anxious about the position of these schools in view of the immense rise in the cost of building today. In his speech the Minister has shown a sympathetic attitude towards the problem. We all appreciate the difficulties of those who have to raise the necessary money


and we very much hope that the concessions he has made may ease their burdens.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler) mentioned the problem of the village schools. Those of us who represent county constituencies are very anxious when we see these village schools closing. The parents do not like their small children travelling many miles; it tires them and they are not able to obtain the best results. I am fully aware of the argument that better teaching may be given in the larger schools, but I believe that the village school plays an important part in the life of the village, and that with the right kind of village teacher it can be a great influence for good upon those children. We do not want to see those schools being closed if it can be avoided.

Mr. George Thomas: Surely the noble Lady is aware that many of these village schools' are a standing disgrace to the village and to the nation?

Viscountess Davidson: I am fully aware of that, but I also know that many of them are extremely good, and that even though the building may sometimes be bad, the influence of the master, the surroundings and other factors have played a very important part, and have not only influenced the children for good but have been a benefit to the village. I do not want to see them removed except when it is absolutely essential.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden mentioned Hertfordshire in connection with new buildings. I am glad to be able to claim that in my county the education authorities have done a good job of work. They built their schools not singly but as a mass operation. They bought their materials in quantities more cheaply than—indeed well below—the maximums laid down by the Ministry of Health. They omitted the frills from their designs and substituted colour for architectural features. I was present at the opening of one of their new schools the other day. I hope that the Minister has had an opportunity of seeing some.

Mr. Tomlinson: Yes, three of them.

Viscountess Davidson: I was more than impressed by the beauty and simplicity of the whole building. I feel that our education authorities are much to

be congratulated on what they have achieved. They have been so successful that in their 1950 programme, which will begin next year, the cost per place will be £140, which is £30 below the maximum laid down by the Ministry of Education. I am glad to have heard the Minister say that he has informed other local authorities of what Hertfordshire has done.
I wish to ask the Minister a question which has already been put to him, and which I am sure will be repeated again and again in this Debate. What are the Ministry doing about the bulge in the birth rate in 1956, by which time there will be 200,000 more grammar school children, of whom 100,000 will be girls? These will require 2,000 more grammar school mistresses. What steps is the Ministry taking to see that women are being trained by the universities, because that action must be taken now? At the present time the annual output of the universities is 2,000 women, and the 2,000 more required by 1956 will be additional. This is a vital matter and should be regarded as being one of urgency. I do not think the same problem arises in regard to men, but I know that great anxiety exists with regard to the number of women needed to be trained and ready for that year.
I should like to end by quoting from a short article which I read last night:
 Education is not the assimilation of facts but the establishment of strength of spirit and mind. Education authorities get bogged in a mass of detail—' plans' time tables, travelling fares, grants for school uniform—and too seldom ask themselves what is this huge educational structure for? What are the principles on which all our teaching must be based? It may not be possible to mould the world into which our children grow up, but it is possible to give them honour, courage, ideals of truth with which to face the world.

6.5 p.m.

Mr. A. J. Irvine: I am glad to have the opportunity of taking part in this Debate. I intend to deal with the single point of the position of the denominational schools and with the arrangements which have now been announced by my right hon. Friend. This is a non-party matter, and it is at the same time a matter of quite crucial importance for the whole life of the nation. There was one great danger implicit in the 1944 Act. My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Leslie Hale) objects, I think rightly, to reference


to a 1944 " settlement." The danger which seems to me to be implicit in that Act is the danger that denominational schools might be squeezed out of existence. Once the principle is agreed upon in this country that the State cannot carry.the whole burden of financing the denominational schools it follows inevitably that there must be some provision in the relevant statutes, such as the provision which appears in the 1944 Act, providing that if the Minister is satisfied that the managers or governors of a voluntary school are unable to meet their obligations those managers or governors are under a duty to ask for an order which will revoke the order giving them aided status.
That provision expresses the danger which is implicit in that Act, because the aided school or the voluntary school is confronted by the dilemma that if it cannot pay, if it cannot meet the cost, it must submit to control. I believe that hon. Members on both sides of the Committee will agree that is an inherently dangerous and unsatisfactory situation, and that they will desire to do all that is possible to alleviate the consequences of that dilemma. The point was clearly recognised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler), who said in the course of the Debate on the Second Reading of the 1944 Act:
 I would ask those who feel deeply to dismiss from their minds the wholly unwarrantable view that the Government desire either to tear away church schools from unwilling managers or to force them inhumanely out of business."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th January, 1944; Vol. 396, c. 229.]
One appreciates that sentiment, but that is exactly what is beginning to happen. They are being inhumanely forced out of business. In dealing with a non-party point of this kind, I have no hesitation in saying that there are many hon. Members on both sides of this Committee who on grounds of deepest principle are greatly alarmed at what is occurring, and at the danger that these voluntary schools might be inhumanely forced out of business.
The total cost to the Roman Catholic community of meeting the expected requirements of the national plan, when it was estimated in 1944, was put at £10 million. The estimate now is that the sum involved will be much nearer £60 million. It is true that there was no

commitment by anyone at the time of the 1944 Act. It was recognised that the making of an estimate was a difficult matter, that prices might rise very considerably. But having studied the position although I was not then a Member of this House, I take the view that, on the whole, the governing expectation was that there was not to be a very remarkable rise in building costs. There is one significant passage in a speech made in Committee by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Saffron Walden on 4th April, 1944, when he said—and I think this is an interesting passage:
 I think it would be very unwise to take too pessimistic a view of what building costs are likely to be when the whole scheme is brought into operation, in stages, three or four years after the war."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 4th April, 1944; Vol. 398, col. 1916.]
There is the right hon. Gentleman with, no doubt, no better opportunity of making an estimate than anyone else, but none the less distinctly indicating that it is his impression that one could be too pessimistic about the rise in building costs. What of course has happened in fact is that these costs have risen beyond all recognition.
What is the inference which I venture to draw from these factors? It is out of order for me to raise any question of amending legislation, but the inference which I seek to draw, which I submit is relevant to this Debate this afternoon, is that it is reasonable, because of these circumstances to which I have drawn attention, to ask that my right hon. Friend should, within the fabric of the Act, make every concession that is administratively possible to help these schools; and that is what we are asking him to do. I would emphasise that that is being asked from both sides of the Committee. I am extremely glad to acknowledge the assistance he has already given today upon these matters. The passages in his speech in which he referred to the changes which have been made in the building regulations, the changes in the treatment of Form 18 and the new procedure in regard to the Form 18 schools—although I share the difficulty of the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Hale) in immediately grasping fully the implications—would appear to constitute very substantial benefits and advantages; and we are distinctly grateful for that.
That and no other is the purpose of my intervention; to remind my right hon. Friend the Minister of how much we look to him to deal with these matters with all the latitude which the Act can give him and to make all the concessions to the voluntary and aided schools which he can within the fabric of the Act. What we are here discussing is a matter of fundamental principle. It is a matter of quite crucial importance and what so many of us are afraid of is that a settlement, which appeared at the time on the whole to be fair enough, is becoming, as a consequence of unforeseen rises in building costs, an injustice. Let there be no place quicker to detect injustice, and having detected it, quicker to stamp it out, than this House of Commons.

6.15 p.m.

Mr. Deedes: I, too, must begin by claiming the indulgence of the House on this the first occasion I have addressed it, and I have a feeling that this afternoon I should best earn that indulgence by using even less than the traditional allowance of time given to a maiden speech.
I wish to add to what has already been said on this very difficult subject of the status, the morale and the remuneration of the teaching profession itself. I combine those three things, status, morale, and remuneration, because they seem to me inseparable. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler) said that this would be capable of no easy solution and no hon. Member should go into details. That is not my intention this afternoon. The Minister of Education was quite right when he said that he was on very delicate ground. But he did say that last year. The Minister will always be on delicate ground on this matter in relation to the Burnham Committee, but that should not prevent some of us from expressing the very deep feeling which there is on this subject at the present time.
Without going into details, I want to touch upon what seemed to me to be three of the fundamental considerations in relation to the teaching profession. First of all, as I think is generally agreed, and as has been said at least once this afternoon, the financial status of the teachers in relation to the wage-earning community has fallen since the war. I do not think that there will be any disagreement in this Committee on that

point. I stress the qualification " wage earner." The term " salary " in this country sometimes becomes a euphemistic term for a wage; but the fact remains that a man receiving £350 a year is not noticeably better off than a man getting £7 a week. Though I must not touch on detail, I would suggest in all seriousness that it might be a considerable benefit to the teachers if their salary scales were expressed in terms of a weekly wage, rather than an annual salary, so that the community would get a better sense of what in effect the teachers are paid.
Secondly, there is some need to redress the balance between those who ordained this great plan which we all have at heart and those who are required to execute it. In the programme of expansion envisaged by the 1944 Act, as I see it, success or failure will in the long run depend upon the teaching profession itself. The human factor, the teacher factor, is fundamental. I believe we may plan and plan, and be doomed to failure, unless we consider the people who must execute this plan in detail.
The third consideration I wish to stress is that, as the status of teachers tends to increase. As the terms of this Act unfold, as education widens, as vocational education increases and scientific education develops, more and more is expected of the teachers of this country; not only of their technical abilities, but their personal qualifications, their personalities, and so on.
Those seem to me to be serious and fundamental considerations in this matter. I omit all the factors affecting human need; the plight of married teachers, the need today for self-imposed overtime among many of them, the decline of those who hold first and second degrees—and I do not think the Minister would dispute that there would be such a decline—and the rival claims of industry. However, when we come to seek to improve these conditions we come up against the brick wall of economic expediency.
I am fully aware that if this were not a maiden speech I would probably be assailed when I sit down, and it would be pointed out to me that while stressing the need of economy in other directions, I am putting forward plans which must involve additional expenditure. But I still think one is entitled to refer to the direction of a policy which tends now to develop with-


out sufficient sense of priorities. My point is that an insufficient priority has been given to the profession and I do not think it is fair that we should now seek to evade our responsibilities to these people simply on the grounds of economic expediency, the wage freeze, and so on. I feel that one is entitled to accept the global figure contained in these Estimates and still to suggest that the teachers' share of it is not as great as it should be and, further, that unless that share is increased, a great deal of the global figure under discussion this afternoon will ultimately be wasted.
I am not sure that when this matter comes to be considered—and I am still dealing only with the broad principle—an all-round increase will be found to be a lasting solution. There does seem to be a case particularly for a new system of differentials something based on human qualities and abilities as well as length of service and paper qualifications. Difficult though it is, and will be, to work out, I feel that that is the only way, without enormous expenditure, in which we will attract the quality and the ability which this profession needs and will need increasingly in the years to come.
It is essential that greater consideration be given in future to the career aspect of the teaching profession, and that we should not count merely upon the instinct of the profession to regard this as a high calling—an instinct which is never lacking in our people. We cannot trade for ever on that instinct. It may well be that we have traded too long on the selfless instincts of a great profession. I was glad to hear the reassurance the Minister gave on this subject. But, whatever the statistics—and I do not think that he will deny this—the fall into quality and quantity needed for this profession is undeniable, and the erosion of their professional morale is certainly rather alarming. I believe that quantity, quality and professional morale, will, in the long run, be found to be the foundations of all upon which we seek to build and that, if we ignore those foundations, we shall build in vain.

6.22 p.m.

Mr. Dryden Brook: It falls to my lot to follow the maiden speech of

the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes), and I am sure that I can offer my sincere congratulations to him. As I. look across the Committee and see his hair without a speck of grey and think of my own, it makes me wish that I could. have made my maiden speech one-tenth as well as he made his, when my hair was not perhaps his colour but when it was without the streaks of grey which it has now. I am sure that we all look forward to hearing him again on many occasions in our Debates.
When my right hon. Friend the Minister of Education was speaking, especially. when he referred to the building programme and spoke of what had been accomplished, it brought to my mind my reflections at Easter when the professional organisations connected with education were holding their conferences and we, had a number of speeches which presented a doleful picture of what had been accomplished in building and in many other aspects. I felt then that we all begin our social career with one ideal uppermost in our minds, and that we tend to make that ideal particular and exclusive of other ideals. One of the first lessons which I learned when I came to this House was that my particular ideal clashed with the ideals of a number of other people. We must re-assess our ideals and make one integrated whole of them.
My own experience this week is an indication of that fact. On Monday and Tuesday I saw deputations from my own town council, of which I am still a member. We discussed the housing question. I am a member of the education committee of that council. This year we have let contracts for three new schools. The people who are to build those schools are contractors who have been building houses for us for the last three or four years. Those contractors are no longer interested in building houses. Now we face the problem that the building of three schools this year will mean a drop in our housing programme of between 50 and 100 houses.
That is a problem with which I imagine almost every constituency is faced. We must decide, in a time of scarcity of resources what is to be the order of priority. In deciding that, we must also remember that we must keep the larger


picture in our minds all the time. In spite of all the difficulties with which we have had to contend, we have made real and substantial progress in all fields of education in the last five years. My right hon. Friend said that at the end of 1949 we had 665 schools in process of construction. Unless the figures which I have looked up are wrong, that is more than we built in the whole of the seven years 1918–19 to 1924–25, when we built 542 new schools in England and Wales.
The best year that we had before the war was 1937–38, when I believe that £14,500,000 worth of building construction was approved by the Ministry. That compares with the figure the Ministry gave of £58,000,000 for building construction started in 1949. If we consider that much discussed aspect of education, the size of classes, we find also that some progress has been made. In 1938 the number of children per class in the primary schools was 32.1. In 1947 it was 30.1. In the secondary schools the figure in 1938 was 22.5, and in 1947 it was 21.
Whatever criterion we take, we have made substantial progress. For instance, in 1939, 13,255 children sat for the higher school certificate and 9,901 passed. In 1947, 26,322 took the examination and 18,701 passed. That shows that there is a considerably bigger proportion of children staying on at school after the age of 16 than there was before the war. We find the same progress is shown in regard to school meals. If we consider every aspect of education, we have no need to be ashamed of ourselves. I am not using these as party points. Hon. Members in all parts are responsible, in part at any rate, for the progress which has been made since the war.
I turn to a subject which I have mentioned before in this Committee, and that is educational opportunity. The ideal at which we must aim is that university education should be open and free to all who can profit by it, and that only by individual merit and not by means of the length of the purse of the parent shall the criterion be made. If the community is to bear the cost, it must also have a voice, first in the standards of attainment which must be reached, and secondly in regard to the future needs of the community as between the different faculties of education in which the universities are engaged —science, the arts and medicine.
In the solution to that problem it appears to me that there are three parts: the contribution which the State may make; the contribution which the universities may make, and the contribution which the local authorities may make. In respect of the State, in the present stringency of resources, which we all hope Is a passing phase, I think that the Minister of Education has done as much as is humanly possible in the time in which he has had to work. I cannot accept the contention which has been put forward in recent weeks that because the further education and training grants are ended, or are about to end, this amounts to a cut in the allocation to university education., These grants were an emergency provision for special circumstances. In respect of the universities, their contribution is limited by the amount of the endowments at their disposal. There have been suggestions made that the State itself should provide the universities with funds for increasing the number of their scholarships. I believe that would be wrong. If the State has further money to expend on university education, it should use it directly by increasing the number of its own scholarships.
I come back all the time to the contribution which the local education authorities should make and, from my experience of my own authority, I should like to put the suggestion that it is with them that the solution lies. My own authority at the present time is prepared to make grants of major scholarships on the full maintenance and fees basis of the Ministry's scheme to every boy or girl in the constituency who reach the standard of the equivalent of two "goods " in the Higher School Certificate examination. All education authorities have not yet accepted the scheme, and I am not satisfied that the 50 per cent. which have not will respond. I should like to know what kind of pressure may be put upon recalcitrant authorities which have not yet accepted the Minister's scheme.
There is another point which is very important when considering the development of university education. The basis and the area of university education have been widened considerably. I can remember that some years before the war when, for example, in the case of my own authority, there was not a single student taking a scholarship who was studying medicine. The period of the course for


medicine was far too long for local authorities to shoulder the burden of the cost. Today, in my own authority, the largest group of students taking university courses is studying medicine. We have 12 students already at the universities on major scholarships or grants taking medical courses, and 36 per cent. of the grants and scholarships of that authority are for courses of from five to seven years, while 60 per cent. of them are for courses from four to seven years.
There is one weakness of this scheme, and it is the variation of the standard set for attainment, but that will come to an end when the new examination system comes in, or at least I hope it will. There is another anomaly on the scholarship question and that is in regard to the age limit for State scholarships. It is stipulated that a candidate shall be 19 on the 31st July of the year in which the Higher School Certificate is taken, but the local education authority has no such limit, and it is therefore possible at present, and particularly for a boy, to fail at a State scholarship and go back to the local education authority, where he will have an advantage over the younger boys in being much more mature. I hope that, as a result of the Debate today, the Minister will look into that small problem to see that uniformity is established there.
One other problem concerns the difference in the means test for parents which exists between the cases of those boys and girls who go to a training college in order to train as teachers and those who go to a university. It is manifestly absurd and unjust that a boy or girl who goes to a training college should be penalised because the income of their parents is fixed at £300, whereas in the case of a major scholarship it is in the region of £1,000 a year. On all these grounds, I plead with the Minister to look into some of the small points which I have referred to him.
I am quite well aware of the time factor in this Debate and of the number of hon. Members who wish to take part. Therefore, though I have spent much time in preparing a longer speech, I am cutting it down, because I think that it is a great compensation for reducing my own speech to know that there are so many hon. Members on both sides of the

House who are so keenly interested in this subject as to wish to speak on it. I cannot conclude, however, without offering to the Minister my congratulations on the work which he has so far accomplished and wishing him Godspeed in his work in future.

6.36 p.m.

Mr. John Morrison: Unlike the hon. Member for Halifax (Mr. Brook), I cannot compare my locks with those of the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) who made his maiden speech just now, as I am already half-and-half grey myself.
I should like very briefly—in view of your warning that we should be brief today, Major Milner—to say a word or two in regard to the position of the voluntary schools, and I speak as one who is the father of four, the youngest of whom is at a small village school. I hope that one day he will not still be in the bottom class. I also speak as one who has been a manager of two Church of England schools in two small villages for some 18 years, and I also speak in the knowledge that, in a large and scattered constituency, there are many Roman Catholics who are equally worried in regard to the position of the voluntary schools.
In supporting my right hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Butler) in his excellent opening remarks, I feel that the whole position of the various denominations must be considered together with the voluntary school problem. It would indeed be disastrous and unfortunate, and a retrograde step in education, if we were to go back on the full scope of the Education Act, 1944, which is leading at present to a better outlook in education throughout the whole country. There is no doubt that all those responsible for voluntary schools at the present time are very alarmed. Some of them have already faced up to the problem of completing this Form 18, while others will shortly be finding themselves called upon to decide whether to complete it or not. It is not an easy matter for ordinary school managers to face up to it, because it is very difficult to know how they will find money in 5, 10 or 15 years, and give this information on the form, when most of that money has to come from garden fetes and the like. I, therefore, sincerely hope that we shall hear something from the


Parliamentary Secretary tonight on the subject of this form.
I should now like to quote to the House part of a letter which Dr. Scott Lidgett wrote to " The Times " on 14th February. He is the Chairman of the Education Committee of the Free Church Federal Council, and he says:
 At the same time, it must be conceded that the rise of prices has made the duties of the denominational schools more onerous than they appeared to be in 1944. Therefore, let the Roman Catholics and those similarly affected work out their costs and present their case to whatever Government comes into power. Should it then be established that they have a necessary and equitable claim for some relief, I au not think that the Free Churches would oppose this being given, provided it was within the 1944 Settlement, instead of demolishing it.
Apparently, all denominations are agreed that, where a case of difficulty or hardship arises, there is scope for reviewing the position at the present time. I believe that there is both difficulty and misgiving, and there may well be hardship, about this particular form, and I hope the Minister will not close his mind to the possibility of keeping the whole position under review, so as to ensure that the fact that building costs have gone up enormously is not a factor which forces the voluntary schools and all those interested in religious education, no matter of what denomination, to give up the unequal struggle on account of having to fill up a form which, perhaps, to their minds indicates a situation much too difficult for them to face for a period of years. It may well be that the cost of a village school, or of any school, in 15 or 20 years' time will be much lower than is at present anticipated.
I wish to refer very briefly to one or two points in the Minister's speech. He said it depends on the new standard of building and the costs of the day, and these are at present still under review. That is one of the main difficulties in filling up this form; it is still under review, and we do not know the cost. He said also that there is no justification for tampering with the financial side of the Act. There is, I believe, every justification for looking into the whole financial position as it stands at present and, within the scope of the Act, making every easement that is possible.
I did not follow some of the Minister's remarks in the last part of his speech.
He said, I think, that the programme for building in Form 18 worked out between two and 10 years at a certain figure, and that over 10 years grant-aided status was to be given at a cost of 25 per cent., which, I believe, is a concession. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will enlighten us a little further when he replies because, quite frankly, I do not follow that.
In conclusion, I wish to say that I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden that the salaries of teachers, and their consequent enrolment into that important profession, are two things of the highest importance in this country at the present time. As the matter is under discussion, I will not touch on it further now, except to say that I hope it will always have the highest priority from the Government. One other small point. In building new schools I hope that, from an agricultural angle, the Minister will remember that children can and always have been able to walk upstairs, and that sometimes one can build just as good a school on a two-storey basis as one can on a large amount of space on the best agricultural land in the district.

6.43 p.m.

Mr. Ralph Morley: There have been two very gratifying features about this afternoon's Debate and one rather disappointing feature. The gratifying features were the assertions made both by the right hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler) and the Minister that there is to be no interference with the compromise regarding voluntary schools effected under the 1944 Act. The disappointing feature of the Debate has been the fact that hon. Members on the Government side of the Committee have opposed the Labour Party's policy with regard to the 1944 settlement. That policy is to support the compromise embodied in the 1944 Act. It is not particularly easy—

Mr. L. M. Lever: On a point of Order. Are we discussing the Labour party policy in this Debate?

Mr. Morley: It was not at all easy to effect any compromise at all in 1944. A good many interested parties had to be consulted before anything approaching an


agreement could be arrived at. The teachers had to be consulted, and I hope it is not suggested—

Mr. Logan: Are the parents not to be consulted?

Mr. Morley: —by anybody on this side of the Committee that one can run an educational system satisfactorily without the co-operation of the teachers.

Mr. Logan: We have heard nothing but teachers.

Mr. Morley: In any educational settlement, one has necessarily to have the cooperation of the mass of the teaching profession.

Mr. Logan: And the parents.

Mr. Morley: Teachers had to be consulted too; members of the Free Church, of the Church of England, and of the Roman Catholic community had to be consulted. The consultations were carried on with all these bodies by the right hon. Member for Saffron Walden, who was then Minister of Education. Of course, those four bodies held diametrically opposite views as to what should be the nature of the settlement. So far as the teachers and the Free Churches were concerned, they were both opposed to the continuance of the dual system; they both wanted to see the abolition of that system, and all schools in the country run as council schools.
The Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church were diametrically opposed to this. They wanted to see the continuance of the dual system and conditions that would make that possible. With these conflicting views among the four interested parties, there was no possibility of a settlement except on the lines of a compromise, and that compromise is embodied in the 1944 Act. The fact that a compromise was effected in face of such a wide divergence of opinion between the interested parties is a great tribute to the initiative, skill, and finesse of the right hon. Member for Saffron Walden.
The compromise effected was not one under which the churches were treated at all ungenerously. It improved the financial position of the voluntary schools. Before the 1944 Act, the voluntary

schools, the Church of England schools, and the Roman Catholic schools had most of their running costs paid out of public funds. The salaries of the teachers were paid out of public funds; all apparatus and all equipment were paid out of public funds. Even the maintenance of playing fields was paid for in that way, but the voluntary schools were responsible for the building and the upkeep of the fabric. Prior to 1944, practically 95 per cent. of the cost of voluntary schools was met out of rates and taxes, and for the remaining 5 per cent. the voluntary schools had full denominational control.
In a way, the settlement of 1944 actually improved that position because it gave assistance in regard to the building of voluntary schools. It gave a 50 per cent. building grant to such schools, and, in addition, there were ways of getting the other 50 per cent. of the building cost by means of public loans at reasonable rates of interest. Therefore, the position of the voluntary schools was improved financially by the Act of 1944, and that was as near an agreement as we could possibly have obtained.

Mr. Logan: One would think we were banking money the way the hon. Member is talking.

Mr. Morley: The teachers agreed to that, although the majority of them wanted to see the abolition of the dual system. They agreed to the compromise in the interest of the children. The Church of England also agreed to the compromise embodied in the Act of 1944. So did the Free Churches, against their previous position. The majority of those consulted, therefore, agreed to the 1944 compromise, and it was the only compromise which could have been got through the House of Commons at that particular time. If anything more had been given to the voluntary schools at that time the Bill would have been resisted in the House of Commons and would not have been successful in finding a passage. It is a fairly generous compromise.

Mr. Logan: Who would have objected? When the Government was defeated on an Amendment brought forward in the House there was no discussion at all—

Mr. Morley: The people who would have objected strongly if the compromise


had gone any further would have been the whole organised body of teachers in this country numbering some 180,000. Teachers have a right to be consulted in these matters; they are the people who will have to run the schools. The Free Churches would also have strongly objected.

Mr. Logan: That has been going on since 1870.

Mr. Morley: I think that a great deal of sensible opinion in the Catholic Church concedes that the settlement was a fairly generous one as far as the Church is concerned and is willing to abide by the compromise. There is, of course, an intransigent section in the Catholic Church whose aims can be stated in one simple sentence: they want Catholic schools for Catholic children, taught by Catholic teachers, run by Catholic clerics and entirely financed out of public funds. That is, of course, an impossible position in any democratic community.
If any organisation is entirely financed out of public funds there must be a large measure of public control. No concern can be financed entirely out of public funds and its management left to private persons. if a 100 per cent. building grant were given to Catholic schools, then other churches would also have a perfect right to ask for it.

An Hon. Member: Why not?

Mr. Logan: I think the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Morley) is looking for trouble.

Mr. Morley: The Church of England would demand 100 per cent. grant for Church of England schools. The Non-Conformists would also demand a grant.

Mr. Logan: They are disappearing like the Liberal Party.

Mr. Morley: The Baptists, the Methodists, the Wesleyans, the Pentecostalists and the Seventh Day Adventists would demand 100 per cent. grant for their particular schools. The result would be that the educational system of this country would be completely divided into different denominations. The teachers would lose their liberties and have a religious test applied to them. In effect. they would be minor clerics in religious sects, and the children would be segre-

gated into denominational enclaves. The atmosphere of Northern Ireland would be brought over to this once happy land, and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) would have another damsel in distress for him to go to her assistance. This compromise is about as fair and reasonable as could have been possibly granted.

Mr. Logan: What compromise is the hon. Member referring to?

Mr. Morley: I am glad to hear from the leaders of both the Labour and Conservative parties that there is no intention on the part of either of them to interfere with the compromise effected in the Education Act of 1944. That statement, coming from both leaders, ought to carry conviction to most people in this country, except perhaps to a very small and very noisy minority. I am sure that teachers and educationalists throughout the country would be very glad to read tomorrow of the decision made on both sides of this Committee.
Another—satisfactory feature of this discussion is the fact that in several parts of the House hon. Members have risen to advocate better salaries for teachers. A number of Conservative Members have advocated increased salaries in this Debate. I am very glad to see that change of heart on the part of the Conservative party. The last time that the Conservative party interfered with teachers' salaries was in 1931, when they reduced them by 10 per cent. They would have reduced them by 15 per cent. had it not been for the mutiny at Invergordon. The British Navy has very often saved the British people, but on that occasion it saved their teachers. I am glad to see this change of heart. It is a matter about which I think we ought to have a few sympathetic words from the Parliamentary Secretary when he replies. I know it is a matter principally for the Burnham Committee, but the Parliamentary Secretary and the Committee of this House cannot be entirely disinterested in it.
I heard the Minister say that he expected to get 23,000 teachers in the next three years. To get the number of new entrants of the right quality that is desired, there will have to be some


increase in the present scale of salaries. I hope, therefore, that when the Parliamentary Secretary replies to the Debate he will be able to offer a few sympathetic words on that point without, in any way, interfering with the prerogative of the Burnham Committee.

6.59 p.m.

Mr. Watkinson: I accept the challenge to be brief, because I think the time is getting short. I apologise to the hon. Member for Southampton, Itohen (Mr. Morley) if I do not follow him. There is one new matter to which I wish to bring the attention of the Committee. It was very briefly referred to by the Minister and I hope that when the Debate is summed up we may hear more about it. It is the question of training in technology—a very unfortunate word for a very important subject. I hope we shall hear a little more about the discussions which I believe are going on about the projected Royal College of Technology.
This Debate has ranged widely, but there is one theme: that the funds to pay for this educational work must come from our success as a trading nation. In the end, that is how we have to find the money to maintain this educational programme. The best way of finding that money is to make sure that on the higher levels of the educational system, we train people who can maintain the manufacturing skill on which our trading success abroad depends.

It being Seven o'Clock, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair, further Proceeding standing postponed until after the consideration of Private Business set down by direction of The CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS under Standing Order No. 7 (Time for taking Private Business).

Mr. SPEAKER resumed the Chair.

Orders of the Day — LUTON CORPORATION BILL (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, " That the Bill be now read a Second time."

7.1 p.m.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask for your Ruling on the scope of this Debate? It will be within the recollection of hon. Members that there were two kindred Bills. The question of principle was discussed on Wednesday of last week, and the House by a majority came to a certain decision. I should be grateful, Sir, if you would let us know the limits of the Debate on the Second Reading of this Bill tonight.

Mr. Speaker: I hoped that I had made it quite clear on Wednesday of last week that we were discussing the principle which ran through both Bills. Therefore, the principle was pot a matter which we would discuss on the second Bill. There were local points relating to Luton, and those local points ought to be put to the House, but I do not think this Debate ought to run for very long on that account. Dr. Hill.

7.3 p.m.

Dr. Hill: Am I to speak on your Ruling, Sir, or shall I proceed with the Bill?

Mr. Speaker: Whichever the hon. Member likes, but preferably on the Bill.

Dr. Hill: I appreciate that the principle underlying the two Bills was dealt with last week, and I will, of course, confine myself to the Luton position, referring to the principle only in so far as it is relevant purely to the Luton situation. I hope that those hon. Members who were hoping to participate in the Debate on education will forgive what may appear to be an intrusion, but perhaps this comparatively non-contentious Bill may provide an opportunity for a cooling process for those who were engaged in the other discussion.
Luton is a busy industrial town with a population of some 110,000. It has grown very rapidly in the last 30 years. It is a town of mixed industries. To the old-established and vigorous hat industry has been added a wide range of


industries, particularly in the field of engineering. To the old sturdy stock of Luton there has been an infusion of blood of varying temperatures from Scotland, Wales and Ireland.
If I do not go into greater detail about the scheme of Luton for county borough status as such, it is because the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health made it quite plain in the Debate last week that he regarded Luton as he did Ilford, as a good independent unit of local government, efficient and reasonably ambitious. He said that he was not advising the House to reject these two Bills on the ground that it was not felt that the authorities could carry out county council duties properly. But for the discussion on principle and but for the allegations that to promote Luton would leave Bedfordshire tepid—I think that was the Minister's word—and impoverished, the claim of Luton to have its Bill considered upstairs would be unopposed by the Minister.
The Minister made clear what was his attitude to Luton in November, 1949. He made it clear that he was opposed to such changes as have now been suggested in the case of Luton because the Government view was that they should bring forward their own proposals, that an examination of local government was in being and that to proceed piecemeal would mean that such changes would be assimilated and overtaken by the proposals of the Government. His attitude. in short, was that comprehensive reform was coming soon, so soon as to overtake such applications as might be made by Private Bill procedure. He added that to proceed piecemeal in the light of that prospect was a wrong procedure.
But in the Debate last week the Minister reached the same conclusion by a different process, for his argument last week was that there is no immediate prospect of comprehensive reform. He persisted in the argument that it was wrong to proceed by the piecemeal method, and added that it would be embarrassing, indeed disastrous, to the county of Bedfordshire, for Luton to succeed in its application for promotion.
We now know that local government reform of a general character is not impending. We now know that the Private Bill method is the only one open to boroughs seeking to improve their status,

and we now know that the Minister's policy is, by the rejection of Luton's claim, as of Ilford's claim, to make impossible until some indefinite date in the future, any major changes in the function and the boundaries of local government. I suggest that the Government have a chance to redeem their unfortunate record of the rejection of Ilford's Bill. They have a chance to resist this doctrine of freezing until an indefinite date all comprehensive reform. Indeed, they have a chance of repenting by their attitude tonight to the Luton Bill.
One of the stronger arguments used against Ilford's Bill was that Ilford was part of the vast London conurbation, and that the problem of London in the local government sense should be dealt with as a whole and not piecemeal. I make no observations on that except to say that Luton's case is in no way affected by that argument. Thirty miles from London, it is an independent town, and I am sure the Minister will agree that it is not part of the London conurbation. I recognise that I have to meet the argument that to give Luton's Bill a Second Reading will be to proceed piecemeal in this task of local government reform. If Luton is removed in an administrative sense from Bedfordshire, there will, of course, be a fall in the penny product, a fall to some £4,126. That will be Bedfordshire's penny yield without Luton.
Of the 12 counties in East Anglia, there are only two in which the penny yield is greater than that amount. In other words, to add Luton to the county boroughs would not create a new position as far as Bedfordshire is concerned. It would create the position which already obtains in the majority of East Anglian counties. Oxfordshire, for example, has a yield on a penny rate of some £3,600. Oxfordshire may be tepid for all I know. but the position of Bedfordshire resultant on the promotion of Luton would be substantially stronger than that of Oxfordshire.
There are 25 counties in England and Wales with a population of less than 200.000. There are 24 counties in England and Wales with a population of less than 4,000, and this so-called piecemeal proposal which, it is alleged, would prejudice the pattern—

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Blenkinsop): Would the hon. Gentleman allow me to interrupt just to give him a chance of correcting what he has said? He mentioned a population of less than 4,000.

Dr. Hill: I was referring to the yield of the penny in my reference to 4,000, but I thank the Parliamentary Secretary for his intervention. Bearing in mind, then, that 24 counties in this country already have a penny yield of less than £4,000, is it reasonable to argue that to make an addition in the form of Bedfordshire to that list of authorities, would prejudice the future pattern of local government? Indeed, does it support the argument that such a county is incapable of administrative efficiency because of financial poverty? Does it support the argument used by the Minister that the promotion of Luton would lead to chaos in the local government field by adding Bedfordshire to the list of 24 counties which are in a similar or a worse financial position?
The Minister of Health referred particularly to the financial condition of Bedfordshire and the loss it would sustain. I am advised that the effect on the Bedfordshire County Council of the promotion of Luton after the operation of the Equalisation Fund, would be an increase in rate poundage of 1.8 pence. I am advised, too, that the effect on Luton Borough Council of such promotion would be a decrease in its rate poundage of 0.2 per cent., and I am advised that the total effect in terms of increased Exchequer contribution would be less than £1,000.
I mention these points because I submit to the House that the case of Luton is worthy of examination in Committee, when these details can be examined with the aid of experts. In reply to the argument that to create a county borough in Bedfordshire would mean chaos, I would remind the House that the effect of such promotion would be a return to the pre-1945 position with six qualifications, and only six. It would mean a return to that position for Bedfordshire and for Luton except under the headings of agricultural education; small holdings; secondary, grammar, technical and further education—and on that I would say that those educational services are now administered under delegation by

Luton with all the complications of exchanges with Bedford and all the waste of effort involved in that—local taxation; mental health, both care and after care; welfare services and residential accommodation for aged and handicapped persons.
Apart from those services which would be acquired as a direct responsibility, we should be returning to the pre-1945 position except that Luton as a county borough would have the full responsibility for such services. So I submit to this House that if we examine the scheme of Luton, as such, regardless of the general principle and regardless for a moment of Bedfordshire, the case is admitted by the right hon. Gentleman. If we examine the principle in relation to the prospect of local government reform, we find that after promises to the contrary, the position of the Minister is now, as stated last week, that there is to be no local government reform unless there can be found a Minister who desires to go into the wilderness.
In the light of that position, the rejection of Luton, added to the rejection of Ilford, would mean in effect—and this concerns every urban authority—the rejection of the Private Bill method indefinitely, for purposes of promotion of status and substantial extensions of boundary. I ask the House to regard this as perhaps the last opportunity before that situation is created, of saying that the Private Bill method is a proper method to be used by such authorities as Luton, and that it does not accept the position that the rejection of Luton is to be permitted to lead to the situation that local government is frozen.
On the immediate issue of the relationship of Luton with Bedfordshire, it is natural to expect the opposition of Bedfordshire. It is natural to expect those who are closely associated with county councils to rise with their customary dignity to oppose this kind of change. I suggest, however, that in the relationship of Luton with Bedfordshire the facts I have brought before the House are sufficient at least to justify the examination of this Bill in Committee in order that the experts may decide whether such a financial tragedy would come the way of Bedford as a result of the promotion of Luton


It is not new for county councils to use the argument of the financial tragedy that awaits them if they lose a substantial urban area by its promotion to county borough status. Although this discussion is limited to the position of Luton, I ask the House to appreciate the implications of the rejection of Luton at this Second Reading; the implication not only for authorities who are hoping one day to achieve promotion, but the implications in relation to those county boroughs at present in existence.
Lastly, whatever the form of the future proposals may be, the Minister has been examining them, I understand, and, following the examination which he was undertaking in November last, he has reached the conclusion announced last week that there is no immediate prospect of comprehensive local government reform. Whatever his examination of the proposals may have led him to believe, the Minister cannot resist the argument that whatever the character of local government reform in the future, there will be promotion for authorities like Luton. To that extent I suggest that the argument that to promote Luton will prejudice these comprehensive proposals. which are not yet in existence, is one which the House cannot reasonably be expected to accept.
I urge hon. Members to remember that this is a non-party issue. It is an issue of importance to local government reform generally. I ask hon. Members to appreciate the implication of the rejection of Luton, following the rejection of Ilford, upon the local government picture generally, and the chilly prospect that it holds out for local government reform of any kind, until that distant and yet unknown day when some Minister will have the courage—or the foolhardiness maybe—to bring to this House proposals for comprehensive local government reform.

7.20 p.m.

Captain Soames: Last Wednesday the House voted against a Bill designed to give county borough status to Ilford. During that Debate there was considerable discussion on the principle of whether such status should be given either to Ilford or to Luton. If the case against Ilford's becoming a county borough was a strong one both in principle and detail, I submit that the case

against Luton's becoming a county borough and being taken away from the County of Bedford, is overwhelming.
First of all, Luton is a much smaller town than Ilford. If it is not right that a town of 184,000 should be given county borough status, all the more surely it is not right that a town of 108,000 should be given county borough status at the present time. Secondly, the County of Essex is much larger than the County of Bedford. If Ilford had become a county borough it would have taken only 12 per cent. of the population away from the county, which would still have been left with a population of 1,360,000; but if Luton were taken away from the County of Bedford it would take away 33 per cent. of the county's population and the County of Bedford would be left with a population of less than 200,000. That, as the Boundary Commission stated, is not an economic unit.
There would have to be two entirely separate autonomous authorities, one for 192,000 people and the other for 108,000 people. Clearly, it cannot be right, in the country's present economic circumstances, to have two such authorities existing in an area the size of Bedfordshire—each, for example, with its own chief constable and each with its own fire force commander. Then there is the question of rates. The House considered that it was not right for Ilford to be given county borough status, and Ilford represents only some 141 per cent, of the rateable value of the County of Essex. Luton represents 42 per cent. of that of Bedfordshire. It would be quite impossible for an equalisation grant to make good a loss of 42 per cent. of the rateable value of the county, and a heavy burden would thus be placed upon the taxpayers of the county. Indeed, it is impossible to imagine that the whole administrative machinery would not be placed in jeopardy.
And this, for what? In order to give satisfaction to the Corporation which is promoting this Bill. I really do not think that Luton has been hardly treated by Bedforshire. Since 1927 the town has increased in size by 5,500 acres; the Chair man of the County Council comes from Luton, as also do the chairmen of many of the most important committees of the council. Therefore, I do not really see what grounds they can have in existing


circumstances for proposing to disrupt the administration of the whole county.
I certainly would not say that Luton should never be granted county borough status. Indeed, I understand fully the views put forward by the Corporation of Luton, and one must sympathise with its desire to achieve independence, but I do submit that such independence can come about only as part of an overall scheme which takes into consideration the interests not only of the borough but of the whole county. If, under existing legislation, Luton were to be taken away from the county and granted the old form of county borough status, as laid down in 1888 in order to suit the conditions of that era, it would spell disaster for the rest of the County of Bedford which, in many respects, is unique, and which makes so great a contribution to the life of the country as a whole.

7.25 p.m.

Mr. George Wigg: I have very considerable sympathy with the case put forward by the hon. Member for Luton (Dr. Hill), but I hold the view that the time is not opportune for the piecemeal reform of the local government of the country, and therefore, much as I should like to go into the Lobby with him tonight, if he is going to divide the House, I cannot do so. Nevertheless, I do think he has made a very considerable case against the Minister of Health, and he has my whole-hearted support. In the Debates which took place in the last Parliament I was persuaded to accept, very reluctantly, the proposal of the Minister of Health because I thought that the time was not far distant when he would come to the House, after full inquiry, and put forward proposals for the reform of local government.
Now we are told, several months after he announced that decision, and some time after the Local Government Boundary Commission ended its work, that the time is not appropriate. If one wanted any evidence that something ought to be done, and done very quickly, one could find it in the speeches of the hon. Gentlemen opposite. One puts forward facts in support of one view and the other puts forward facts in support of another, on one and the same case; one hon. Gentleman argues for

Luton and another argues for the County of Bedford. I am not less guilty than they, but one tends to forget that one is not dealing here with bricks and mortar but with the lives and happiness of the constituents whom one represents. This argument for local government reform is not based upon any local boundary line —any suggestion of a red line here against a blue line there. One is dealing with open spaces, with schools, with houses, with the things that will make a happy and contented Britain.
If the time is not appropriate, I should like the Minister of Health or the Parliamentary Secretary to tell us when it is going to be appropriate. The House was fobbed off, and I do not believe that the Minister of Health would have had such an easy passage as he had, if any of us had reckoned that, six months later, we were going to be told we had to wait indefinitely until getting an election—

Mr. Speaker: That was, of course, discussed the last time. We are now discussing' the Luton Corporation Bill and the special arguments for or against it, and we must confine ourselves to this Bill, and not discuss the general proposition.

Mr. Wigg: I am sorry if I have offended, but I was trying to deal with the arguments put forward by the hon. Member for Luton. I said I thought he had made out a very good case; that I accepted what he had to say on the question that there was a need for something to be done for the borough which he has the honour to represent here, but that I thought he had failed to make out his case, on the ground that this is a piecemeal approach to the question. I hope, therefore—I do not want to transgress your Ruling, Mr. Speaker—that, whatever the fate of this Bill may be tonight, he and I will be allies in continuing our pressure on the Minister of Health to decide that the time is appropriate not only for the reform of the boundaries of the Borough of Luton but also for the reform of the boundaries of the Borough of Dudley

7.30 p.m.

Wing-Commander Bullus: I had intended this evening to speak in general terms, but in view of your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, I must imagine myself as one of the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Luton (Dr.


Hill). Indeed, I have something in common with that town. In my younger days I did not wear a hat, but in my later years I find it necessary and desirable; I now find that the people of Luton are also desirous of enhanced dignity, and in that respect I support my hon. Friend. The inhabitants of Luton might well examine the speech of the Minister of Health on 26th April in which he held out no immediate prospect of presenting proposals for the major reform of local government, but in his concluding remarks admitted:
Local government … is … ticking over, not as satisfactorily as we would like."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th April, 1950; Vol. 474, c. 1068.]
Here I maintain is a real admission that there is room for improvement.
The Minister agreed at the outset that Luton and Ilford are large, efficient and reasonably ambitious local authorities, but he advised the House to reject the Bills on the ground that no major change in the status of local authorities should be made piecemeal. But this is the only legitimate method of approach. What other method is there? Here is a legitimate aspiration of a community which desires enhanced dignity a perfectly natural ambition under our present system of local government. Are we to believe that this system is now completely out of date? If so, was it out of date five years ago? The Government have had four and a half years in which to put forward proposals, and I suggest—

Mr. Blenkinsop: On a point of Order. I should like your Ruling, Mr. Speaker. I understood from what you said earlier that the general principle underlying the claims of Ilford and Luton could not be discussed this evening, as it was discussed last week. As far as I can understand, that is what the hon. and gallant Gentleman is developing in his speech now.

Mr. Speaker: I have interrupted the Debate already to point out that hon. Members must direct their remarks to Luton, and to Luton alone. The House decided the general principle by a decisive Division last Wednesday.

Wing-Commander Bullus: So far from developing my case, I am bringing my remarks to a conclusion, and am pointing out that the Government had five years

in which to find reform or an alternative method to the present one, which Luton is legitimately following. The Minister of Health now says that because the House is so closely divided he does not think there is any immediate prospect of any Minister of Health bringing proposals before the House for the radical reorganisation of local government. I am reminded of the indolent Indian—

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: There are no indolent Indians in Luton. Any Asiatics there are very active.

Wing-Commander Bullus: The Minister of Health complained in the last Parliament that he had no time. He complains in this Parliament that the House is so closely divided that he has not a sufficient majority.
I will now bring my remarks to a conclusion. For the future I see no alternative to the present method by which Luton can aspire to county borough status. They have made a legitimate attempt to attain it. If they do not get it, how many years will it be before they do? I do not want to see stagnation of local government; I do not want to see local government merely " ticking over." I want the legitimate aspirations of boroughs such as the borough of Luton to be realised.

7.34 p.m.

Mr. Messer: I know that I shall find it difficult to confine my remarks to Luton, but I promise to do my best. Some hon. Members may wonder what connection there is between my constituency of Tottenham and Luton. Well, there is a connection because the River Lea runs through both Luton and Tottenham, although I understand that the River Lea is drying up at Luton whereas it is not drying up in Tottenham.
I think the hon. Member for Luton (Dr. Hill) made an excellent case, but if I may say so it was a typically medical case. He examined the patient and he arrived at a diagnosis, but I believe his prognosis to be absolutely wrong. What is the position of Luton? By itself, it has every claim to county borough status. There is not the slightest doubt about it; there is nobody who can deny that.

Dr. Hill: Except the Minister of Health.

Mr. Messer: If we look at Luton in isolation there appears to be no reason why it should not be given county borough status; but looking at it in isolation means that we are taking no notice of the effect that would have on the county of which it forms part. What industrial areas has the county of Bedfordshire? It has the market town of Dunstable, the county town of Bedford, and the one industrial town of Luton.
The speech of the hon. Member for Luton was very convincing in what it said, but a great deal was left unsaid which ought to have been said. What the hon. Member did not say was that there is a grammar school in Luton, a large part of which is populated by children who come from outside areas in the County of Bedfordshire. Now I know that if Luton gets county borough status, it will enter into an arrangement whereby the children from the county districts will come into the grammar school until their own population fills the places, when the children from the villages will have to travel miles to get to a grammar school. This House has no right to look at Luton by itself. It has a duty to see what effect it will have on the larger populations if we give Luton county borough status. The time has arrived when this thing should be examined, but it ought to be examined in relation to the rest of the county.
The hon. Member for Luton gave some very interesting illustrations. He invited the House to look at East Anglia. Well, of course, everybody who wanted to support the case of Luton would bring in East Anglia. They would look at the Isle of Ely, and they would look at that anachronism the Soke of Peterborough. If Cambridge were taken out of Cambridgeshire, what would be left for administrative purposes?

Dr. Hill: Is it not reasonable that I should look by way of illustration, first at the area of counties of which this is a part, and then proceed, as I did, to examine it in relation to the 24 counties in England and Wales? Could I have started and got away with a comparison, say, with the Welsh counties?

Mr. Messer: No, but the hon. Member would have had to be prepared to hear what I had got to say in reply, and what I had to say in reply is this. How far

are such illustrations valid? Is it to be said that the 24,000 population of Canterbury justifies every place with a population of 24,000 being a county borough? Let us look, for instance, at the county council which is well known but which is not even big enough to send a Member to this House. I refer to Rutland. The hon. Member for Luton referred to raising £4,000 by a penny rate. Rutland County Council can raise only £500 by a penny rate. Indeed, when a boy from Rutland goes up to the secondary school the ratepayers say " There goes another penny."
These illustrations show that we cannot take one place and say that because that has the title of a county or a county borough, then ipso facto every place with a population of that size should equally have that status. What we have to consider is this: Luton can justifiably claim to be a county borough, but we have the right to ask what is going to happen to the services in the rest of the county if Luton is taken out of it. If we can be satisfied that the people in the rest of the county will not be adversely affected by the change, there is no reason why the change could not take place. Personally. I am not so convinced.
I believe that this fragmentation of local government is the worst thing that can happen at the present time. What is necessary is that Luton, in company with the smaller—what a horrible word it is—conurbations of Luton, the smaller areas of population, should be so adjusted as to be able to deal with the comprehensive field of social service which they are called upon to administer. On its positive basis, Luton is entitled to be a county 'borough, but it cannot be given county borough status without affecting the rest of the county.

7.41 p.m.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The hon. Member for Luton (Dr. Hill) said that the county Members rising in this House always rise with dignity. I do not know whether it is possible to rise with dignity and at the same time to announce that I am going to sit down again in about one and a half minutes. Any dignity that I may show as one of the county Members for Bedfordshire would be no greater than that shown by the hon. Gentleman himself in the speech


which he quite properly made on behalf of his constituency and my neighbours. We claim in Bedfordshire that the burgesses from the boroughs and the knights from the shires can be generally associated with dignity with matters concerning the welfare of our county.
How much I agree with what the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Messer) has just said. This must be looked at as a whole. He made reference to the schools in Luton—the two grammar schools created by the county council with the great help of the town of Luton itself; the schools of which right up to the Education Act of 1944, 20 of the 21 governors had come from Luton because the county council realised that the education of the children in the schools there—though, as he rightly said, involving interests from the county outside—is predominantly a matter for the people who live in Luton.
The hon. Member for Luton made some reference to education in general. We are glad to realise that the Chairman of the Bedfordshire Education Committee is himself a man from Luton as, indeed, are his colleagues—the chairman of the highways committee, the chairman of the fire services committee, the chairman of the welfare committee and the Chairman of the County Council itself. The hon. Member for Luton said that if in fact the town of Luton was taken out of Bedfordshire, although it would undoubtedly have effects which he claimed could be put right by the equalisation fund—I will not go into that argument because that may raise other issues which may not be in Order—it would not be a smaller area than many of the counties existing today. But all the counties that he had in mind, save the Isle of Wight, which is part of the county of Hampshire or associated with the county of Hampshire, were deemed at the most recent inquiry held by the Boundary Commission, to be uneconomic units; and should this House tonight, by passing this Bill, create what would in fact be another uneconomic unit?
I will not take up the time of the House because I have already exhausted my minute and a half, but I should like to put this problem: Might we not find ourselves involved in appalling administrative and ethical difficulties if, having rejected the scheme for Ilford for this status, today we allow it for the town of

Luton? It would be hard enough to justify if their claims were equal, but their claims are not equal as the hon. and gallant Member for Bedford (Captain Soames) has so clearly shown.
I live not very far from the town of Luton. I have many friends there. I think that it is a great town with an immense future, and certainly all of us who know about the export drive in motor cars and many other industries know how much the welfare of Britain owes to the enterprise of the people of Luton. But I also know that the areas not very far from my own home have been incorporated in the town of Luton in the last 20 odd years in the belief that they would remain part of the administrative county of Bedford. The largest addition of all, I think, was made to the area of Luton in 1926, when the town council sent a formal statement to the County Council of Bedford hoping this would in fact be granted, and saying in effect that they had no intention of attempting to change the borough status of Luton into county borough status.
I have great sympathy with the arguments put forward by my hon. Friend, and I hope very much that we shall have a comprehensive review, and that Luton will feel that in bringing this Bill before the House it has once more demonstrated the need for something to be done. I cannot agree more with hon. Members on both sides who have said that the time is long overdue for a comprehensive review. I do not share the optimism of the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) that a Government, constituted as this one is, is likely to bring in anything which is comprehensive or immediate. However, the problem remains and the town of Luton should realise that the best contribution it can make to a proper consideration of this problem, is to work in with the county as a whole, in which they play such a striking part, in the hope that in future years under a wiser Government the whole problem can be properly looked at again.

7.47 p.m.

Mr. Geoffrey Hutchinson: I shall not detain the House for many minutes tonight, because I had an opportunity last week of putting forward to the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health certain propositions of a general character which arose on the Ilford Cor-


poration Bill. I received no answer to any of the propositions which I put to him; I notice that he is not in his place tonight. He has sent the Parliamentary Secretary to deal with the matters which arise on the Bill.
I intend tonight to confine myself in accordance with the Ruling of the Chair to the more limited issues which the Luton Corporation Bill raises. The first matter with which I wish to deal is this. My hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Captain Soames) has said that if the House agrees to the Second Reading of this Bill and it eventually becomes law, the effect will be to disrupt the administration of the County of Bedford. On that ground he advocated that the House should postpone its decision until an over-all scheme was proposed for the reorganisation of local government.
What is going to happen if Luton becomes a county borough? Certain very important services, perhaps the most important services which a local authority undertakes, will become centred in the Borough of Luton. They will become the education authority, the authority for the personal health services, and the planning authority. At present these services in the County of Bedford are being reorganised on the basis that the Bedfordshire County Council is to be the authority.
If some general reorganisation of local government is to come later on, and clearly it must, whatever view the right hon. Gentleman takes of the present situation—I can quite understand his reluctance to embark upon a Measure of that sort in the circumstances of the present Parliament—it is surely better that those services should now be reorganised, not upon the basis of county administration, but upon the basis of administration in the Borough of Luton. No one, in all the discussions which have taken place during the last 10 years, has ever suggested that towns of the size of the Borough of Luton should receive reduced powers in any reorganisation of local government. Of course they would not receive reduced powers.
The problem is to determine what overall services they will administer as a result of the reorganisation of local government. I know of no set of proposals which have been made by any association of local authorities, or by any political

parties, which propose that a borough of the size of Luton should be accorded reduced responsibilities. If that is so, surely it is better that we should now allow the major services to which I have referred to be reorganised in the County of Bedford upon the basis that they must eventually follow the pattern of reorganisation which must eventually take place. If these services are allowed to be reorganised now upon a footing which will certainly not be the same footing as the `eventual reorganisation will inevitably take, it must cut across that eventual reorganisation of local government, whenever it comes, much more completely than by allowing these services to be reorganised now on a county basis.
I always listen to the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Messer) with interest. I thought that his argument tonight might have been more fittingly addressed to the County Councils Association than to this House.

Mr. Messer: I did so because I thought Members of this House were as intelligent as members of the County Councils Association.

Mr. Hutchinson: I hope that the county councils will be satisfied with this Debate.
I hope that the House will give a Second Reading to the Bill, in spite of what happened on the Ilford Bill last week. I am afraid that my hopes are destined to disappointment. The combination between the Labour Party, on the one hand, and the County Councils Association, on the other, is almost irresistible. It is my view that the disturbance the passage of this Bill is likely to cause to the eventual over-all reorganisation of local government is likely to be much less serious than the rejection of the Bill would be. We shall render a much more useful service to the eventual reorganisation of local government, whoever undertakes it, if this Bill receives its Second Reading.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. and learned Member is now discussing the general principle. We really must stick to Luton and nothing else.

Mr. Hutchinson: I am endeavouring to relate my remarks to the circumstances of this Bill. I will conclude by saying that the disruption of local government is


likely to be much less serious if we allow the important services to which I have already referred to be reorganised on the basis of borough administration, rather than on the lines of county administration.

Mr. Speaker: I hope that the House will now be able to come to a decision.

7.56 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Surely the Minister is going to give the House some guidance before we come to a decision. [HON. MEMBERS: " No."] There is the whole evening before us. I trust that the Minister is going to give us some guidance upon this matter. [HON. MEMBERS: " No."] There is plenty of time, and we have no intention whatever of being bullied by interjections from the other side. If the Government wish to get their business through, they will need to get their Members to show courtesy to Members on this side of the House. We are discussing a rather important point upon which the House of Commons is entitled to have a lead from the Minister. The Minister's own supporters have drawn attention to the desirability of this.

Mr. Blenkinsop: It is perfectly clear to everyone who attended the Debate last week and has heard this Debate that no new matter has been raised other than the points dealt with very fully by my right hon. Friend. For that reason, I do not see that there is any point with which I need deal. All the details in the case of Ilford and Luton were fully dealt with by my right hon. Friend and I would advise hon. Members to be guided by the advice he gave.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: We were then debating the case of a city in the midst of a vast conurbation, when it was suggested that Ilford should not have this status because it was very awkward to deal with—

Mr. Blenkinsop: Surely the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has taken the trouble to check on what my right hon. Friend said in that Debate? If he would care to refresh his memory by looking at the HANSARD Report, he will find that my right hon. Friend dealt at some length with Luton as well as Ilford.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: These are two Bills. The House has been repeatedly

reminded by Mr. Speaker that this is a separate Bill, and that the arguments we adduce must be addressed to the Bill now before us. The last Debate was conducted on the grounds that Ilford was part of a large conurbation, whereas this Bill deals with a city which is part of a county. It is very desirable that we should understand clearly whether the position is that the Private Bill Procedure is not in any circumstances to operate, because that is a point on which the Minister's own supporters have shown a great deal of uneasiness.

Mr. Blenkinsop: I think that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman is now dealing with the general principle, which I understood we were not to discuss.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: If I may say so, I think that Mr. Speaker has shown himself a jealous guardian of our rules as to whether or not a Member is entrenching upon the general principle. I take it that I have not been doing so, or else I would have been called to order. The House is in the position of deciding in favour of the Second Reading, or against the Second Reading, or it can tie.

Mr. Speaker: I would remind the right hon. and gallant Gentleman that I gave a Ruling last Wednesday which I recollect quite well. We discussed both Bills together on the general principle. We left this one for local considerations, and " local considerations " are the words I used. That is what I thought we were going to discuss tonight.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: It is on those local considerations that I am addressing these remarks to the House. I am saying that, in fact, on those local considerations it would be perfectly in order for the House to decide in favour of the Bill or against it or, as was done this month, to tie on the matter, in which event the matter would be decided on the casting vote of Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker's casting vote would be given for the Bill, because it would be necessary to continue its discussion.

Dr. Morgan: That is quite theoretical.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: It is a decision which has not yet been taken by the House, and the House is free—

Mr. Pargiter: On a point of Order. Are we discussing the procedure of the House or the Luton Bill?

Mr. Speaker: The Luton Bill, that is what I want.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: The hon. Gentle- man has now been informed what it is we are discussing, and I trust he will apply his intelligence in future to those matters—

Mr. Pargiter: It is not my intelligence which is at fault; it is my inability to dis- tinguish in what the right hon. and gallant Gentleman is saying, whether he was dis-cussing what you, Mr. Speaker, might or might not do, or something that had to do with the Luton Bill.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: When the hon. Member has been longer in the House it will dawn upon him what the procedure of the House is.

Mr. Pargiter: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman should also know that it is not for the general good to detain the House on matters with which the House is not particularly concerned at this stage, but he should help us to get on with the business we want to get on with, namely the Luton Bill.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: When the hon. Gentleman is longer in the House he will know that we will be able to come to a decision without necessarily casting aspersions upon the procedure of the House. We are proceeding under the ancient procedure of the House, and under it the House has the power, and ought to have the power, of referring this matter to a Committee for examination, thereby geting on with the business of the House. It is the opposition of some hon. Members opposite which is detaining the House at this moment in the examination of a Bill, for which a perfectly adequate procedure exists. That point of procedure is that the Bill could go up- stairs and be examined by experts, so that those complicated matters which have been broached but by no means exhausted in our discussions this evening should be threshed out. It is not at all the unanimous opinion of hon. Members on the other side of the House that the procedure which has been adopted at present is correct, nor for that matter is

it the opinion of hon. Members on this side of the House because this is a nonparty business. The principle that a body of citizens who wish to have their position considered should have the right—

Dr. Morgan: On a point of Order. May I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to give us guidance on whether we are considering the procedure of the House and so preventing discussion on this Bill or some other Bill?

Mr. Speaker: It is only prolonging the proceedings and we want to come to a decision on this Bill.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Precisely, and the longer these irrelevant points are raised the longer we shall be in coming to a decision. The hon. Members who are slavishly suggesting that the Bill should not receive any further consideration are doing no good either to this House or to the cause of local government, and the well established procedure of an examination upstairs is the procedure which might well be used in this case of the Luton Bill. The points raised on the Luton Bill differ from those decided on the Ilford Bill, and are a proper subject for detailed and not general consideration. The House tonight has been held up for over an hour by an examination, which it is not capable of conducting fully under the present proposal, and which could be dealt with perfectly easily by the well recognised procedure. The Bill should now be given a Second Reading. I am saying this purely as an individual, and I am not committing hon. Members on this side of the House. I am speaking as other hon. Members have spoken from my own point of view, and my principle argument is that we are in danger of a serious and continued freeze-up if this general principle is adopted. Against it I make my protest.

Several Hon.: Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: I hope the House will now come to decision. We have spent a lot of time on this matter, and we had three hours on it the other night.

Question put, " That the Bill he now read a Second time."

The House divided: Ayes. 84 Noes, 259.

Division No. 11.
AYES
[8.5 p.m


Alport, C. J. M
Foster, J. G.
Ropner, Col. L


Banks, Col. C.
Gridley, Sir A.
Russell, R. S.


Bennett, R. F. B. (Gosport)
Grimston, Hon. J. (St. Albans)
Savory, Prof. D L


Bennett, W. G. (Woodside)
Harris, F. W. (Croydon, N.)
Scott, Donald


Bishop, F. P.
Hay, John
Shepherd, W. S. (Cheadle)


Bossom, A. C.
Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.
Smith, E. M. (Grantham)


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Brockway, A. Fenner
Hill, Dr. C. (Luton)
Smithers, Sir W. (Orpington)


Browne, J. N. (Govan)
Hirst. Geoffrey
Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Hornsby-Smith, Miss P
Spens, Sir P. (Kensington, S.)


Bullus, Wing-Commander E. E
Hutchinson, G. (Illord, N.)
Stevens, G. P.


Burden, Squadron-Leader F. A
Kaberry, D.
Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)


Butcher, H. W.
Keeling, E. [...]
Storey, S.


Channon, H.
Kerr, H. W. (Cambridge)
Taylor, W. [...] (Bradford, N.)


Clarke, Brig. T. H. (Portsmouth, W.)
Lambert, Hon. G
Thompson, K. P. (Walton)


Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Llewellyn, D.
Thompson, R. H. M. (Croydon, W)


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Maclay, Hon. J. S.
Tilney, J. D.


Crouch, R. F.
Maclean, F. H. R.
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K


de Chair, S.
Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)
Vosper, D. F.


Deedes, W. F.
Maude, A. E. U. (Ealing, S)
Ward, Miss I (Tynemouth)


Digby, S. Wingfield
Nabarro, G.
Watkinson, H


Drewe, C.
Oakshott, H. D
White, J. Baker (Canterbury)


Duncan, Capt. J. A. L
Pitman, I. J.
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Duthie, W. S.
Powell, J. Enoch
Wills, G.


Elliot, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Walter
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O
Wilson. G. (Truro)


Erroll, F. J.
Rayner, Brig. R
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Fletcher, W. (Bury)
Robinson, J. Roland (Blackpool, S.)
Mr. Reader Harris and


Fort. R
Roper, Sir H
Mr. Garner-Evans.




NOES


Acland, Sir Richard
Daines, P.
Hamilton, W W


Allen, A. C (Bosworth)
Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Hannan, W.


Anderson, A. (Motherwell)
Darling. G. (Hillsboro')
Hardman, D R


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Davidson, Viscountess
Hardy, E. A.


Awbery, S. S.
Davies, Rt. His. Clement (M'tgomery)
Hargreaves, A.


Ayles, W. H.
Davies, Edward (Stoke, N.)
Hastings, Dr. Somerville


Bacon, Miss A.
Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Hayman, F. H.


Baird, J.
Davies, Harold (Leek)
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley R.)


Balfour, A.
de Freitas, Geoffrey
Herbison, Miss M.


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A J
Deer, G.
Hewitson, Capt. M.


Bartley, P
Delargy, H. J
Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)


Beswick, F
Diamond, J.
Houghton, Douglas


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Dodds, N. N.
Howard, S. G. (Cambridgeshire)


Bing, G. H. C.
Donnelly, D.
Hoy, J.


Blenkinsop, A.
Driberg, T. E. N
Hubbard, T.


Blyton, W. R.
Dugdale, Rt. Hon. J (W. Bromwich)
Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, N.)


Boardman, H.
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)


Bottomley, A. G
Edelman, M.
Hughes, R. M. (Islington, N.)


Bowden, H. W.
Edwards, Rt. Hon. N. (Caerphilly)
Hynd, H. (Accrington)


Bowen, R.
Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Hynd,.J. B. (Attercliffe)


Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Irving, W J (Wood Green)


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Evans, E. (Lowestoft)
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G A


Brook, D. (Halifax)
Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)
Janner, B


Brooks, T. J. (Normanton)
Ewart, R.
Jay, D. P. T.


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Field, Capt. W. J.
Jeger, G. (Goole)


Brown, George (Belper)
Finch, H. J.
Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S.)


Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)
Jenkins, R. H.


Burke, W. A.
Follick, M
Johnson, J. (Rugby)


Burton, Miss E.
Foot, M. M.
Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Hans, S)


Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)
Fraser, T. (Hamilton)
Jones Jack (Rotherham)


Carmichael, James
Freeman, J. (Watford)
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L W


Castle, Mrs. B. A
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H T
Keenan, W


Champion, A. J
Ganley, Mrs. C. S.
Kenyon, C.


Chetwynd, G R.
George, Lady M. Lloyd
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W


Clunie, J.
Gibson, C. W.
King, H. M


Cocks, F. S.
Gilzean, A
Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr E


Coldrick, W.
Glanville, J. E. (Consett)
Kinley, J.


Colegate, A
Gordon-Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C
Lang, Rev. G.


Collick, P.
Greenwood, A W J. (Rossendale)
Leather, E. H. C


Collindridge, F
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Wakefield)
Lee, F. (Newton)


Cook, T. F.
Grenfell, D. R
Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)


Cooper, G. (Middlesbrough, W.)
Grey, C F.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H


Cooper, J. (Deptford)
Griffiths, D. (Rather Valley)
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.


Corbel, Mrs. F. K. (Peckham)
Griffiths, Rt. Hon J. (Llanelly)
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)


Cove, W. C.
Grimond, J.
Lewis, A. W. J. (West Ham, N.)


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Haire, John E. (Wycombe)
Lewis, J. (Bolton, W.)


Crawley, A.
Hale, J. (Rochdale)
Lindgren, G. S.


Cripps, Rt. Hon. Sir S
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.


Cullen. Mrs. A.
Hall, J. (Gateshead, W.)
Lloyd Selwyn (Wirral)







Logan, D. G.
Pargiter, G A
Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)


Longden, G. J. M (Herts S.W.)
Parker, J
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


McAllister, G.
Paton, J.
Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)


MacColl, J. E
Pearson, A
Thomas, T. George (Cardiff)


McGovern, J
Pearl, T F
Thomas, I O (Wrekin)


McInnes, J.
Poole, Cac.,
Thomas, I. R (Rhondda, W)


Mack, J. D.
Popplewell, E
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)


McKay, J. (Wallsend)
Porter, G
Thurtle, Ernest


MoLeavy, F.
Proctor, W I.
Timmons, J.


MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Pryde, D. J
Tomlinson, Rt Hon G


MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Pursey, Comdr H
Tomney, F


Mainwaring, W. H.
Rees, Mrs. D
Vernon, Maj W. F


Mann, Mrs. J.
Reeves. J
Viant, S. P


Manuel, A. C.
Reid, W. (Camiachie)
Wallace, H W


Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A
Rhodes, H
Watkins, T. E


Marshall, S. H. (Sultan)
Robens, A.
Webb, Rt. Hon. M (Bradford, C.)


Mathers, Rt. Hon. George
Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)
Weitzman, D.


Messer, F.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)
Wells, P. L (Faversham)


Middleton, Mrs. L
Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)
Wells, W. T. (Walsall)


Milchison, G. R
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras. N.)
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John (Edinb'gh, E.)


Moeran, E. W
Ross, William (Kilmarnock)
White, Mrs. E. (E. Flint)


Monslow, W.
Royle, C.
White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Moody, A. S.
Shackleton, E. A. A.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W


Morgan, Dr. H. B
Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir H
Wilcock, Group-Capt. C. A. B.


Morley, R.
Shurmer, P. L. E.
Wilkins, W. A.


Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)
Silverman, J. (Erdingtonl)
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)


Morris, R. Hopkin (Carmarthen)
Simmons, C. J
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)
Slater, J.
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Mort, D. L.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Moyle, A.
Snow, J. W
Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Huyton)


Mulley, F W
Sorensen, R. W.
Winterbottom, I. (Nottingham, C.)


Nally, W.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir F
Winterbottom, R. E. (Brightside)


Neal, H.
Sparks, J. A.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Oldfield, W. H.
Steele, T.
Woods, Rev. G. S.


Oliver, G. H.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)
Wyatt, W. L.


O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H
Stokes, Rt Hon. R R



Padley, W. E.
Strauss, Rt. Hon G. R. (Vauxhall)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Stross, Dr. B.
Captain Soames and Mr. Nugent.


Pannell, T. C
Sylvester, G. O

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY

CIVIL ESTIMATES, AND ESTIMATES FOR REVENUE DEPARTMENTS, 1950–51

Again considered in Committee. Question again proposed,
That a further sum, not exceeding £40, be granted to His Majesty towards defraying the charges for the following services connected with Education for the year ending on the 31st March, 1951.

EDUCATION

8.19 p.m.

Mr. Watkinson: I should like to briefly conclude my speech, as I did not win my race with the clock before the proceedings were interrupted. The point that I was trying to make was the urgent necessity of going on with our plans for technological training. There is a National Advisory Council on Education for Industry and Commerce. It has made a report which is now being studied. I hope that when the Minister is summing up we may get some further information from him upon what that council is going to recommend. We should like to know whether it will

recommend the setting up of a Royal Institute for Technological Training or some new qualification on the technological side.
I do not think anything is quite so important as the need to encourage technological training, and I do not think it is unfitting that we have come back to this Debate via Luton. In the great engineering industry of Luton, and in particular in the car-making industry which I know personally as a machine tool manufacturer, the need of higher training on the part of our technicians has been very apparent. I remember that in the Navy, where I was a technical officer during the war, we developed a thing called the Type VI sight, which was the best gyro gun sight in the world. When we wanted it produced in quantity we had to give it to America. In peace-time the same problems are encountered. Our basic research is second to none in the world, and so is our capacity for developing new engineering products of all kinds. Our difficulty arises when we want to go from one off the production line to 1,000 or 100,000 off the line. That is where we ought to be able to call upon the services of a large number of highly skilled people,


not technicians so much as technologists. It is a horrible word but it has become necessary because the technologist takes the wider view of industrial problems which enables him to take part in production on a larger scale.
I hope that when the Debate is summed up we shall hear that some priority is being given and some steps are being taken to deal with what I consider to be a very urgent problem. Whether it will be dealt with by grading up existing technical institutes or through the universities is, no doubt, a matter on which expert advice has been taken, but I would emphasise again the vital necessity for considering this end of the educational scale as well as the other end. I think it is true to say that the machine will never be man's enemy as long as our own mental and technical capacity keeps pace with machine development. There is a danger at the moment that machine development has got ahead of our technical capacity to control it. It is to that end that the educational system needs to be developed in order to set the matter right.

8.24 p.m.

Mr. Ewart: I want to deal with one or two points on the subject of the voluntary schools. While the matter has been fully ventilated this afternoon, I still feel that there are points which can be put. I welcomed the statement of the right hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler) that it is the partners in education who have to resolve this matter by negotiation. That is the one firm means by which full justice will be given to the claim and the case of the voluntary schools and the matter finally resolved. The important problem which confronts the voluntary schools today is the fact that they are being legislated out of existence by the heavy incidence of inflated costs compared with the assessment in 1943. Statements have been made that the 1943 agreement was an enforced one and was accepted by the bodies concerned under protest. I will quote some of the figures given by the Roman Catholic body in this case, to substantiate the arguments which I want to make.
Before doing so I want to thank my right hon. Friend the Minister of Education for having made some modification in the case of Form 18 schools. The

sliding scale modifications give a greater time limit for the raising of money and guarantees. We welcome that statement in so far as it is a concession thrown across the Floor of the House this afternoon. However, the problem remains that the global figure required by the dominations is a crushing financial burden. It was argued by my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham (Mr. Leslie Hale) that taking the basis of the cost per place at £50 prior to the 1943 agreement and contrasting that with the estimated 35 per cent. increase and allowed costs of £170 today, it is estimated that the cost per place has been increased eightfold. That bears out the figures which have been advanced by the Roman Catholic body to show that the £10 million figure of 1943, which was never recognised as a firm and true figure, now represents a cost to them of over £83 million, which is eight times the original amount for the completion of the development plan.
One hon. Member said that money spent on religion was an effective form of defence. I am glad that he got some encouragement from the Committee in making that statement, but according to Form 18, the way the money has to be found is by church bazaars, raffles and other means at the disposal of the denominational bodies. There is a belief abroad—it exists in the House, too—that in the case of voluntary schools the denominations are being subsidised. Nothing of the kind. The denominational people pay their rates and taxes in common with other taxpayers, they provide the money for State education by paying their proportion towards the State schools, and, in effect, because of their religious convictions, they are called upon to pay an additional amount for being able independently to exercise the parental right of determination of the type of religious education which their children should receive. It is in all respects an added burden which can hardly be borne by the denominational communities.
The Minister told us this afternoon, in connection with the modifications in respect of Form 18 schools and commitments under Form 18, that if a school costing £80,000 ranked for a total grant of 50 per cent., the denomination would be required to raise £40,000 of it and that would represent £2,000 a year in loan


charges over 30 years. By a process of arithmetic, he reduced that to a charge of 8s. per head per annum of a community of 5,000 people of the specific religious denomination whose children would eventually use the school. If the average family unit is five, that is a charge of 40s. on the family. That argument will not be very convincing to the people in the north-east, who have to provide a great amount of money to maintain their voluntary schools.
Hexham and Newcastle as a diocese, serving in the main Durham and Northumberland, are called upon to provide, for alteration and substitution of existing buildings and transferred primary and secondary schools, £190,716 for sites alone, and £3,574,789 for buildings for proposed primary and secondary schools; and for new buildings, under which there is no State aid at all they have to find roughly f8i million. True enough, it is a long-term policy and can be spread over a period, but the money has to be found. These towns in the north-east diocese, Hexham, Newcastle, South Shields, Sunderland, Jarrow, and looking south into the Middlesbrough diocese, where they have to find about £3 million, are heavy industrial areas, previous distressed areas which are now development areas. They have to find these colossal amounts for the maintenance of their voluntary schools. That is why it becomes a crushing burden.
The Minister said that a proposal had been advanced by the bodies concerned as a solution. It is what is known as the Scottish system. The Scottish system was brought in by enactment in 1918, and provides that the whole of the costs in Scotland shall be borne by the State and that there shall be no financial burden on the individual. In other words, in denominational schools in Scotland, provided there is agreement on the appointment of teachers, there is no cost to the parents of the children who receive their education and their religious instruction in those schools. But the Minister says it is unworkable here. Why? The proof of the pudding surely is in the eating. It has worked successfully in Scotland since 1918, and stands as a striking example of a solution of this problem. I believe it is the only solution that can be considered and will eventually have to be adopted

to solve this serious problem so far as voluntary schools are concerned.

Commander Maitland: Is not it a fact that there is a religious test on teachers in Scotland? Just as a matter of interest, is the hon. Gentleman in favour of imposing a religious test on teachers in this country?

Mr. Ewart: The Minister said that one of his objections to the Scottish system was the religious test on teachers. I see no objection to a religious test on teachers. There is a religious test now on teachers who man the voluntary schools, and what could be the objection? After all, the Scriptures may be taught in the curriculum, as scripture, and that may be taught without any serious loss to the denominational activities of the individual teacher. But when it becomes a democratic right of a minority, as in this case the right of parents to say that their children should be taught religion, then religion can only be taught in the schools by teachers with religious convictions. I see no reason whatever against a religious test on teachers who wish to exercise their vocation in teaching religion in denominational schools.

Mr. G. Thomas: My hon. Friend would, I know, not like to give a wrong impression. He is well convinced that teachers in the county schools are deeply religious people who play their part, and I know he would like to make that clear.

Mr. Ewart: I do not propose to enter into an argument as to whether teachers in county schools or any other kind of schools are deeply conscientious people. I think that in the main they are. But I was asked specifically whether I believe in a religious test. When it comes to the point or purpose of teaching denominational religion in schools, I am fully in favour of a religious test being applied to the teachers. That is the only way in which to maintain the denominational aspect of the voluntary schools. I make no apology for saying that.
The right hon. Member for Saffron Walden said that he believed that this was a matter which should be treated without any specific regard to individual denominations. I agree. I go a long way towards accepting the arguments he advanced. But there is very little difference now between the Church of


England, the Nonconformists and the Roman Catholics. In their memorandum the Roman Catholic body ask, as an interim proposal, for practically the same as the Church of England. In effect, the Church of England body say, " We want an agreement now within the framework of the 1944 Act, and we want all the available concessions by administration which will reduce the crushing cost which will eventually put us out of existence." They say they want to establish the right of the maintenance of voluntary schools, and they ask for further State help in that direction.
The right hon. Gentleman argued that sanitary arrangements were not part of religious teaching, and that the Church of England wanted those amenities to be provided by the State. The Roman Catholic body say pretty much the same. They say that the classroom is the kernel of the educational system and that, as an interim compromise, by administration or even by amending legislation, the State. which is held responsible for certain provisions and amenities in schools, should extend the scope and include other amenities so as to reduce the cost.
They say that they are responsible for caretakers' dwellings, for buildings in which school meals are served, and for medical treatment, and that the facilities should be extended to include sanitary arrangements, cloakrooms, gymnasia and other buildings ancillary and necessary to the modern educational unit. That would reduce the cost of the voluntary schools to the denominations. These matters are worth considering by the Minister when he meets the representatives of these bodies.
One of the happiest features of this Debate is that we are considering this matter in a mutual and friendly spirit and that the denominational aspect has not affected our discussions. Another feature is that the Archbishop of Canterbury, in a statement reported in " The Times," said that concessions were needed within the framework of the Act of 1944. He said that there should be an easement of the burden, and he extended an invitation to the other sections of denominational schools to enter into joint consultation and probably negotiation.
I believe that if this matter is considered dispassionately, and if we look at the burden which is nearest to us as Mem-

bers of Parliament, we shall realise that a lot of self-sacrifice has been made by religious communities for the preservation and maintenance of voluntary schools. What has been said here today —apart from the arguments against the easement of the burden—is that the school managers and governors should continue to make further sacrifices and that they should continue to find more money to enable the schools to enjoy their independence. In Sunderland alone, where there is a population of probably 20,000 Catholics, the cost to the community will be over £400,000. That provision has to be made by the local authority in producing its development plans, and the money must eventually be found by that body in the maintenance of this principle. There are 4,000 children attending Roman Catholic schools in that town, and, by the implementation of the development plan, that figure will be increased to a maximum of 6,000, bringing an additional financial burden to the religious community.
Very strong, determined and sincere arguments have been brought to bear on the Minister today, and I hope he will take into consideration the many suggestions that have been made when he discusses these matters with the representatives of the voluntary schools, and that, as a result, we may be able to obtain a firm agreement on a change of policy.

8.41 p.m.

General Sir George Jeffreys: In view of the necessity for brevity, I shall not attempt to follow the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Ewart) with many of whose views I am in considerable agreement, I want to refer to the Minister's proposed scheme for dealing with educational trust funds, which scheme is being put forward, admittedly on an experimental basis, in the county of Hertfordshire, but which possibly in an amended form, it is intended to apply to all groups of trusts in other counties, or so I was informed by the Minister in reply to a Question recently. It appears from the draft scheme, which I read, that all local trust funds left by local benefactors for specific local needs are under this scheme to be pooled in a general county trust and re-distributed amongst all the schools in the county. This is to be done in much the same way as, when the National Health Scheme came into opera-


tion, the trust funds of local hospitals were taken over and pooled.
The Minister has stated that some of these old trusts are now out of date or have become unworkable. If so, there may be a reason for dealing with such trusts in this manner, but, surely, there is no reason for diverting them from the localities for whose benefit they were established? Surely, there is no reason for appropriating these funds—and there are many of these trusts which are quite effective to this day—or for diverting the funds to purposes other than those which were intended by the founders? If such misappropriation of trust funds is once started in the educational sphere, where is it to end? It would appear that any trust funds might be misappropriated and diverted to other purposes, and surely, that is a state of affairs which neither the Minister nor any hon. Member of this House would like to countenance.
In the draft scheme, Clause 12 states:
Religious opinion … shall not in any way affect the qualification of any person for being one of the governing body under the scheme.
That may be reasonable for trusts unconnected with religion, but it is surely inadvisable and inadmissible in connection with trusts which had religious origins or have religious purposes? Incidentally, I would say that the proposed governing body—there is a formidable list in the draft scheme—is of most unwieldy dimensions, as its purpose is to represent all authorities and interests affected by the scheme.
The scheme has aroused considerable apprehension among all connected with local educational trusts. It will certainly not be received with favour in my county of Hampshire—of that I am sure—nor, I fancy, in other counties which possess, as very many of them do, local educational trusts, subscribed locally for specific local purposes. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will think many times before attempting to give effect to the scheme in anything like its present form.
I do not wish to say any more on this subject, but I hope the Minister will examine this matter very closely again. There may be some of these trusts which are unworkable in some way, but I suggest that even those should not be diverted from local purposes, and that

others which are up to this day workable and which produce an income from funds given by various benefactors for public local purposes should not be diverted from those purposes.
I wish to say a few words on certain forms, if I may describe them so, of education which are not strictly educational. I refer, in the first place, to character training, including the inculcation of a reasonable discipline in schools, and, I would add, in homes. I believe that is of tremendous importance. I also believe —and I know there are certainly a good many hon. Members opposite who agree with me that religious training is of very great importance indeed. If for no other reason—and there are many other reasons —I believe that religious training is of value for inculcating in the minds of children the elementary difference between right and wrong. There are too many children and young people growing up in these days without a clear realisation of what is definitely right and what is definitely wrong.
If these two matters are attended to in schools—as I know they are in some, and as I wish they were in all—then it would have a very marked effect on what I am practically certain all of us are concerned about, the very serious increase in juvenile crime. I would also suggest that in every school some instruction should be devoted to producing health and strength in the children—I am not certain to what extent that is universal; I know that it is present in some cases—and, with those objects in view, the inculcation of personal cleanliness and instruction in some form of physical training.
I wish to add one more thing. I believe that in every school there should be definite teaching of good manners and civility. I daresay that hon. Members have seen accounts in the Press quite recently—last week, I think it was—of how our French friends are anxious about this matter and have inaugurated something in the nature of a campaign to promote good manners in France. I do not say that we should imitate all their methods —some of them appear to be rather remarkable—but I suggest that they are probably quite right in wishing to improve the manners of the rising generation. We might do very much worse than follow their example in that particular respect.
I suggest that good manners have a sound business value. Civility costs nothing, and yet it is often completely lacking. Many young people in these days seem hardly to understand the meaning of the words " please " and " thank you." Moreover, many seem unable to adopt a pleasant or a civil tone of voice, and, in some cases, even think that incivility is a sign of independence, or even superiority. Yet, anybody wishing to get business for himself or to sell his goods or services is much more likely to be successful if he can be pleasant and civil about it. The Ministry give many instructions, and I wonder if a few instructions on these matters I have mentioned might not be of use in our educational system. The motto of the oldest public school in this country, which has provided several Ministers for the Front Bench of the present Government. is " Manners makyeth man." It is a motto which I envy that school very much—it is the only thing which I envy it.

8.45 p.m.

Mr. Peart: I congratulate the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Petersfield (Sir G. Jeffreys) upon departing from the orthodox way in which this Debate has proceeded. It is very important that in an educational Debate we should discuss the content and purpose of education. I should like to deal with that part later on in my speech.
I wish to add my congratulations to the Minister of Education. I believe that he has perhaps the most important job in this Government. I hope that one day, in a more peaceful age, we will regard his position as more important than that of the Minister of Defence. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler) who opened the Debate, argued about the social pattern in which we should place the main Education Act. I agreed with his remarks. We should look at the Education Act, 1944, and its administrative workings now in relation to our social pattern. That is why, in the short time at my disposal tonight, I wish to stress the importance of a subject not so far mentioned, namely, the comprehensive school.
I know the words " comprehensive school " arouse considerable hostility in the educational world; and that hostility is not confined to party divisions. I

believe the Education Act, 1944, represented an important step forward, but the Act itself was a compromise. It had many defects, and I am afraid there are still too many people connected with education who think in terms of three main streams of education, the child having to choose one stream at a very early age.
I believe that is the main educational argument against the present set-up—the division between modern, secondary, technical and grammar. I would prefer that all children went to a comprehensive school where there is a sharing of some common studies. I am glad that certain education authorities have catered for comprehensive schools in their development plans. I hope the Ministry of Education will give every encouragement to those authorities that wish to include in their development plans some form of comprehensive system. We all seek to end some of the old social snobberies which arose out of the old educational system.
That is another argument against the present unfortunate set-up. I have stressed often before the dangers of placing our children into separate categories, which unfortunately become social categories. I know it well from my own experience as a schoolmaster in a grammar school before the war. I know how our boys, drawn from an elementary school in a little mining community, tended to act differently from their brothers who were left behind in the old elementary school. Then, again, we have the main problem of the public school system in relation to this new set-up which we are creating. I believe the time must come when we must face this problem. If we are going to build a real political and social democracy under a Labour Government as I hope we shall, we shall have to tackle the public school system one day. I know that may seem heresy not only to hon. Members opposite but to many hon. Members on this side of the Committee.

Mr. Sidney Marshall: Surely the hon. Member is not adducing the proposition that comprehensive schools would for ever break down inequalities in education or in the social life of this country?

Mr. Pearl: Yes, I certainly think they will help. If in a school we have bright boys playing with boys who are not so


bright, sharing common studies, games, dramatics and so on, we shall tend to break down some of the social barriers which were created in the old system which I certainly knew before the war. I believe that as long as we have a separate public school system, which after all is really a private school system, and as long as we have that system turning out education for a section of the community—

The Deputy-Chairman (Colonel Sir Charles MacAndrew): Can the hon. Member tell me whether this involves legislation?

Mr. Peart: I should have thought that my suggestions could be implemented by amendments to the Act. I was merely illustrating how we should push ahead with the comprehensive school to remove some of the social snobberies which still exist. So long as we still have, for example, the public school system outside the main stream of education, there will still be that major problem. I will not press the point any further, but I hope the Minister will give us some indication of what will be done in the future by the Ministry to encourage those local authorities who wish to advocate a comprehensive school system.
I was very glad that the hon. and gallant Member for Petersfield stressed the content of education. That really is what we are debating tonight. We may provide a new school system, but what this Committee should be concerned with is what we are really going to teach, what is the real purpose of education. Sir Richard Livingstone in that excellent book of his, " Education for a World Adrift," classifies education into three main provinces—(l) that dealing with vocational, (2) the political and social, and (3) dealing with the spiritual in the wider sense. I sincerely hope that in this Debate or in some future Debate we shall have some more opportunity to discuss this important aspect of education.
I should like to put forward my own views on this matter. Our first consideration should be to teach children to think. That is important. When we look at the world around us we see the influence of propaganda in the cinema, and now in television, which affects the habits not only of people outside but of many hon.

Members in this House. When we consider all the propaganda barrage which the young mind is faced with today, it is essential that we create an educational system which can act as a barrier and shield. If I may use the words of Prof. Harold Laski, education should be a preparation for intellectual scepticism.
Secondly, we should teach in our schools respect for the views of the minority. Thirdly, we should teach better international understanding, and that is why I was sorry to learn today from a Question which I addressed to the Minister of Education that because of currency arrangements, teacher exchanges with the United States of America this year have been reduced. It is important that our educational system should teach children how we can live with other countries in friendship and peace. Lastly, we should encourage the children to have an appreciation of beauty, a love of our own native culture, what has been described as " that habitual vision of greatness." If we think of education in that sense and relate it t,) what we seek to do in a new democracy providing educational opportunities, we shall be achieving something.
Finally, a word about teachers. After all, the teacher is the main person. We can have good schools, a good curriculum but if we have bad teachers our educational system will not function. I am glad that hon. Members on all sides of the Committee have paid a tribute to this honourable profession. If I may add a word of controversy, I only wish that some hon. Members opposite had spoken up loudly in defence of the teachers in the 1930's or in the 1920's. when we had no balance of payments problem, no lack of wealth in this country. Then the teachers faced cuts in their salaries. I hope that my former teacher colleagues outside the House of Commons will remember this when they read the speeches of certain hon. Members opposite who seemed to woo the teacher vote.
I believe that the matter of teachers' salaries is important. The right hon Member for Saffron Walden indicated an important aspect of the problem in relation to the shortage of science masters in our grammar and technical schools. Somehow there has to be found a means. financial or otherwise, whereby we can


attract teachers back into those schools. I hope this problem will be settled satisfactorily by the Burnham Committee and that the teaching profession will achieve, as a result of those negotiations, a status comparable with that of other professions in this country.
As one hon. Member said, we should not be pessimistic about our progress. Despite all the difficulties since 1945, I believe we are on the progressive road—I nearly said the right road—to full educational opportunities and the creation of a real democratic structure for our children and for our people.

9.3 p.m.

Mr. Gilbert Longden: I rise with great trepidation, Sir Charles, because this is my maiden speech, but I shall always feel trepidation in addressing this august assembly, where everything one says is taken down and may be used in evidence. I am quite sure that in practice it will generally be used in evidence against one. I used to think that there was some analogy between a maiden speech and a maiden over, when you are legitimately allowed to try to bowl the other side out but are not yourself scored off at all, still less hit for six. I know better now, and I have chosen this occasion not only because of the paramount national importance of the subject we are discussing, but also because it is or should be non-contentious. If, nevertheless, some of my observations may tend to be critical, I must ask for the indulgence of the Committee.
May I begin by saying that I think education and the necessaries of life which are in short supply are the only two commodities I know of which should properly be equally shared. I use the word " equally " advisedly because I do not know what the current term " fair " shares means. It must depend, of course, upon the judge and upon the criterion he uses. Education, however, should be the equal opportunity of all. Every child born into our British fellowship should, I think, enjoy—if that is the right word, though, perhaps, it is not—at any rate receive a good education. However, I must differ from the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) in that I do not think that there is any need for that education necessarily to be " on the State."
I think that it is the privilege and

responsibility of a parent—of every parent—to be able to choose the education for his child, and, if he can afford to do so and if he wishes to do so, to send him not to a State school but to a different—not necessarily a better, but to a different—form of education; and if he does so, so much the better for the Chancellor and for the taxpayer. It is only when he cannot afford to do so, or does not choose to do so, that the State is there to educate the child up to the best possible standard that the child is capable of reaching.
Let me put it another way. Education is a social service; and I believe that social services are or should be a device whereby the Chancellor skims some of the cream off the means of the well-to-do in order that all may have some butter on their bread. If we are all to rub along on £400 a year, as Mr. Bernard Shaw would have us do—though not himself—whence the cream? Where is that coming from? Surely it is not the standardisation of mediocrity but the inequality of individuality which makes for progress. I do not want to get bogged down in details which many other hon. Members of this Committee are better qualified to deal with than I am, such as how many square feet per pupil there should be or the respective merits of drawing versus dining-rooms.
I want to come to the heart of the matter, which has been touched on by hon. Members on both sides of the Committee, and that is the object of education. Why are we spending this money? I agree with my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Petersfield (Sir G. Jeffreys) and with the hon. Member for Workington that the object of education is to form character. I think it was Aristotle—I have not been able to trace the exact reference—who defined character as being the daily habit of choosing correctly between right and wrong. If we can teach our youth that, then we shall have won all the wars that can be waged at whatever temperature. To train character I believe we have got to teach self-creation. We have to teach the child to learn to be a real person—for example, to know that there is something better to do on fine Saturday afternoons than to queue up outside a cinema, and to be able to think for himself or herself, and judge for himself and be independent of the tinned and


potted propaganda and misinformation which comes our way today.
That, I hope, we can all agree is the true object, and if so, we must ask ourselves: By what methods do we attain this object? To form character we need to have a standard, and I suggest that it should be the Christian standard; and, therefore, Christian teachers are required, at any rate for the non-secular part of the curriculum. I think it is a lamentable characteristic of modern life that a professedly Christian State should allow any man or woman to mould the character of future generations who is not a professed Christian. I shall fall foul of the National Union of Teachers in saying so, I know, but I do not care, because that is what I think. But many professed Communists are now doing that very thing. To me Christianity and Communism—at any rate, as practised in the Communist States, for handsome is as handsome does—are mutually incompatible.

Mr. Morley: Were not the early Christians Communists?

Mr. Longden: I said " as practised in Communist States, for handsome is as handsome does." I say that they are mutually incompatible. I may be at loggerheads with the head of my own Church, whom I heard in another place, only two days ago, saying that the Church would take no action against professedly Communist priests until the State did, and I thought at the time that it was the sort of lead which one might have expected from the Duke of Plaza Toro.
If we want Christian teachers, and if we want good teachers we must seek to further two ends, and these are the only two points—they have been touched on many times before in the Debate—with which I shall trouble the Committee tonight. We must first encourage denominational schools, including new schools, to remain as independent of the State as possible. Here I must pay a tribute to the Roman Catholic Church for the lead that they have given in this matter. I say " lead," because they are not seeking unilateral relief, but are the first to say, and always have said, that any agreed solution must be applied to all.
The fact is, as I see it, the great settlement which was skilfully negotiated by my right hon. Friend the Member for

Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler) and the right hon. Gentleman the present Home Secretary, in 1944—whether it was agreed or whether it was not, it was accepted at the time—has come unstuck through unforeseen circumstances and nobody's fault. What has happened is that the voluntary schools were given a choice of aided status if they fulfilled a condition which has since become impossible of fulfilment; it is not even Hobson's choice. We must not seek to salve our consciences by saying, " Oh well, they had the chance but they did not choose to take it." We know quite well that they cannot take it, and if we are in earnest about this we will devise a solution, if possible within the settlement. whereby they can take it.
I very much welcome what the Minister had to say this afternoon about Form 18—or I welcomed as much of it as I was able to take in at the time—and I wish him great success in the future conferences with the various bodies with whom he will, I hope, continue to negotiate. There are considerable financial commitments, of course, which must in any case be entailed by the Churches, but they should not be more than is proper and possible for Christian people, to bear in return for this privilege. I am quite certain that it will be in the national interest to retain as many of the aided schols as we can, as Dart of our educational system.
I pass now to the second method whereby we seek to give a sound education to our children, and that method is by paying their teachers properly. Every hon. Member knows for what maximum and minimum salaries a generous State expects to obtain the services of men and women whose work can make or mar future generations, and I hope that every hon. Member will agree that these salaries are pitifully inadequate. I would remind the hon. Member for Workington, who introduced, in my opinion, a regrettable controversial point, that I at any rate, for one, was not here in 1920 or 1930, and I do not care what was done then or what was not done. I am concerned with today and the future.
I hope that all hon. Members will agree that these salaries are pitifully inadequate judged by the work they are expected to reward. They were that before the rise in the cost of living: they


are now derisory. At their lowest they are lower than the wages of a skilled artisan. One reason for that state of, affairs is that the teachers cannot speak so loudly as can other sections of the community. Another reason is that they are loyal, and they have a sense of duty to their pupils. I do not think that we should allow those two reasons to stand in their way any longer. The State is a poor paymaster, and it treats its servants with niggardly disregard. But we who control the public purse—or should control it should not sit idly by and allow the builders of future generations to be paid scarcely more than a jobbing gardener.
May I make one very brief digression to bring to the notice of the Minister a matter which is not concerned with the pay of teachers but with their conditions of service in the constituency which I have the honour to represent by a majority vote. In the south-west corner of the pleasant county of Hertford there is a large estate being built by the London County Council. In due course there are to be 14 schools on that estate, and they will need about 160 teachers to staff them. Yet I am informed that not one single house on that estate is to be earmarked for a teacher—not one single house for one single teacher—and I am told that in the one school now functioning, teachers have already begun to resign.
One last word on pay. I know that this is primarily a question for the Burnham Committee and not for this Committee, but I respectfully suggest that it is the function of the Government to let it be known that the money will be found to implement their recommendations, or such of the money as has to come from the Exchequer. We may be asked and quite reasonably asked: Where is it coming from? But is it really dishonest, or even inconsistent, to promise increased benefits and also increased savings from the public purse. It is a common business experience—and there is no lack of business experience on either side of the House—for a concern spending more than it is earning, to be saved from bankruptcy by a new mode of management.
It is a question of cheeseparing on the one hand and of priorities on the other, and the two have quite often gone hand in hand to the mutual benefit of all con-

cerned in the industry; but in these postwar days the ever-recurring problem seems to be how to make do with less and less of what we need in order that we may have more and more of what we could well do without. When it comes to priorities, I would unhesitatingly put housing at the top. I regret that the Minister of Health is not in his place. He was here earlier in the afternoon, and I hoped that he might be here now. Second in the list of priorities and I.do beg the Minister to persuade his col- leagues to agree with me—and I hope I can say with him too—that there should be an immediate grant for substantially raising the salaries of the men and women teachers in this country.
I have tried to suggest to the Committee that we should not lose sight of the fact that the main, the only, object of education is to help each child to become a real person with a Christian standard by which to judge for himself, and therefore that we must ensure the continued existence of the voluntary or denominational schools, and that we should pay our teachers properly. If it was with trepidation that I rose it is with the greatest relief that I am now about to resume my seat. I thank the Committee for their very kind indulgence, and I hope that they will not consider my maiden in the same class as that most piteous creature in English literature —Wordsworth's " Lucy," who you may recollect, Sir Charles, was
 A maid whom there were none to praise, And very few to love.

9.18 p.m.

Mr. Cove: I am sure that I voice the feelings of the whole Committee in saying that they have listened with pleasure to the speech which has just been delivered by the hon. Member for Herts, South-West (Mr. G. Longden). He showed a sincere and intelligent interest in the subject of education, and I am quite certain that he will get the teachers' vote. He has indeed been most outspoken in support of their claims.
I will not at this late hour detain the Committee long. I am sorry that so much of the time necessarily had to be devoted to one or two main topics to which I hope to refer briefly in my speech. The question of the denominational schools is, of course, a burning one which in


volves a great deal of feeling at times. I have been a Member of Parliament for some years, and I have witnessed great changes in the feeling towards this problem. If my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Leslie Hale) thinks it is any easier now to make concessions than in 1944, he is making a profound mistake. I am politically opposed to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler), and I do not claim to have a great inside knowledge of what happened during the passing of that Measure, but I remember quite definitely the right hon. Gentleman taking a step in support of the denominational schools in the face of great pressure against additional money being granted.
There is a case for further financial aid to the denominational schools, but we have to take great care that we do not offend large sections of religious opinion in the country. This is not solely a matter of right and justice to the denominational schools, but is also in the broadest sense a political matter—the question of timing of how much can be done and how quickly we can do it. If any step is taken at this moment to break the negotiations that have taken place in the past, it will redound to the detriment of the denominational schools rather than to their benefit.

Mr. Logan: Has not my hon. Friend forgotten the past?

Mr. Cove: I am afraid that I have not the time to answer my hon. Friend.

Mr. Logan: I wish that my hon. Friend had allowed me to put my point.

Mr. Cove: I am appealing for a settlement by general agreement and consent. I greatly regret this profound issue, which affects the lives of thousands of our fellow citizens, being thrown in the maelstrom of party politics. I do not want to go back to the old days of religious strife, and the only way to prevent that is by means of the suggestion of the right hon. Member for Saffron Walden and my right hon. Friend, of an agreement by negotiation.
The 1944 Act, so far as religious teaching in schools was concerned, was in some respects a revolution. For the first time in British educational history

the State took upon itself the responsibility to compel religious worship in our schools. For the first time in the history of British education, the State has been charged to inspect religious teaching in the schools.

Mr. L. M. Lever: Of a limited character.

Mr. Cove: My hon. Friend must not—

Mr. Logan: There must not be any objection to what the hon. Gentleman says. Are we not M.P.s just as he is?

Mr. Cove: There is evidence in what is taking place now of what will occur if this is gone on with. I do not want that. I want agreement. Why? Because. all the time, who is suffering from the rotten, miserable, filthy, insanitary schools? It is not the parents, because they have left, but the tens of thousands of children who are to be educated in these insanitary buildings, which have not been improved upon either by the State or by the churches concerned since they were built.
On this matter I do not want to speak too long but I want to see a settlement by agreement. If we cannot get it that way, I am afraid the fires of religious differences will burn with greater intensity in the future than has ever been the case before. Therefore, I support most strongly the suggestions made by the two Front Benches, and I endorse their attitude towards this problem. I was glad to hear the support which was forthcoming from the other side of the Committee. I hope hon. Members opposite will continue to render that support.
I should like the Minister to give me a reply to one question. I am not here advocating an increase of teachers' salaries. I do not think this is the place to do it. That is the work of the Burnham Committee. But as far as I could observe, in the last negotiations the Burnham Committee were somewhat paralysed. They did not do their job and they could not come to any decision. This is the question I want to ask: Will the Burnham Committee be free to negotiate on the next occasion? I am not asking the Minister whether he will accept the findings. He has got to do that, or reject them. What I am asking is whether any


categorical statement can be made that the Burnham Committee will be free to negotiate, loosened, as it were, from the wage freeze? I hope hon. Members opposite will support me in this, so that there can be an agreement on teachers' salaries. In brief, will the Committee be allowed to have their own head and conduct full and free negotiations in order to come to this decision?
There are one or two further points I should like to mention. Will the Minister take some steps to ensure that the emergency trained men will be employed when they leave the colleges? I gather that there may be some measure of unemployment among them, which would be a great hardship after they had gone through their training in the colleges. I have here a quotation from " The Economist." It is a comment upon the report of the appointments board of Oxford University with regard to secondary education and the supply of qualified teachers. It is as follows:
The most specific information given by the report relates to unemployment in teaching, a subject to which the Committee directed special attention. The findings are disturbing enough on the arts side. In science and in mathematics they arc very alarming. Out of 897 men taking their finals in mathematics, physics, chemistry, biology and engineering, between 1945 and 1949, only 49 became schoolmasters and of these, seven or eight have since left teaching.
I understand that there are secondary grammar schools where the sixth form cannot have teachers in physics, chemistry or biology because there is a great shortage of them.
I should like to give one or two figures about the shortage of women teachers. I have a statement which shows that the Staffordshire County Council are 529 below establishment, Birmingham 406, Hull 243 and Sheffield 261 below establishment. Therefore, in the infants' and junior schools there is a great shortage of women teachers. On the other hand, in the secondary grammar schools, there is a shortage of specialist teachers, especially in the sixth form. It all points to the need for something to be done to increase the supply of qualified teachers in all sectors of our educational system.
I do not want to detain the Committee any further, but my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) has pleaded for the comprehensive school. We

shall never let this issue die, but shall always raise it. It is useless for hon. Members to say that the idea is not practicable. If there are comprehensive schools in this country at all, the most successful ones are the great public schools. I remember that we sent a letter, with a pamphlet about comprehensive schools, to the headmaster of Rugby and that he wrote back: " Why send this pamphlet to me? Mine is a comprehensive school." Harrow is a comprehensive school. The only difference about these schools is that they contain in the main only one class of the nation.
It is no good saying that it is not practicable in view of what I am now about to read, which I consider to be one of the finest justifications of the comprehensive school ever written. It is by the Advisory Committee for Scottish Education. It condemns the tripartite system, and it says:
But even if the tripartite system were wholly feasible, is it educationally desirable? If education is much more than instruction, is in fact life and preparation for life, can it be wisdom thus to segregate the types from an early age? On the contrary, we hold that school becomes colourful, rich and rewarding just in proportion as the boy who reads Homer, the boy who makes wireless sets and the boy without marked aptitude for either are within its living unity a constant stimulus and supplement one to another.
That is the vital approach to the problem of the content of education. Education is a subject far wider, deeper and bigger than mere learning and the development of the intellect. It is utterly wrong to segregate boys and girls on an intellectual basis in grammar schools. It is alien to the spirit of life to say that we can decide the destiny of children at the age of 14–plus. To do so is to do an injustice to the child and a wrong to the nation. We who support the comprehensive school say that that should be the means of developing our education system.
The hurrying of the examination for entrance at the age of 11–plus into secondary grammar schools, has meant that many children of the artisan and lower middle classes who would normally benefit by further education have been unable to pass the qualifying competitive examination and have had to go to private schools. This has meant a great growth in private schools and it is an intolerable burden on the artisan and lower middle


classes. Private education is costing too much, and in some cases it is not really good education. The way to ease that situation is to develop the comprehensive schools so that all children will be able to develop their aptitude and talent.

9.39 p.m.

Hopkin Morris: It is very interesting that in the main the Debate has turned on the question of religious instruction in the schools and the position of the denominational schools. This discussion is taking place scarcely six years after the passing of the 1944 Act. I would agree that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. '. Butler) is to be congratulated upon having achieved a measure of agreement in 1944. When I say that I think it is an achievement, I do not mean to say that I agree with the solution. I believe that it is the duty of the denominations and the churches to provide it and also that of the home. But in my view it is a very different matter when it comes to the question of the State providing it. I do not believe it to be the duty of the State to provide it, nor that we should allow the State to provide religious education. Religious education should be kept completely out of the power of the State. The " Leviathan " is not the proper authority for religious instruction.
This is an old issue. It has been debated from the beginning of civilisation when the State was merely the expression, as Plato would put it, of forming upon earth the pattern in heaven. Then religion and education were united in one and the authority of the State in one. The advance of civilisation has become the separation of the sphere of Caesar and the sphere of God:
 Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's.
That division has formed the basis of Western civilisation and we should not hand back to Caesar " the things that are God's." At the point of that division comes the break with the ancient civilisation. Turn back for a moment to the first Plato Republic. Examine the nature of his suggestion, after careful and long argument, that the definition of justice is the proper fulfilment by man of the functions

allotted to him. That is the view of the old world. By handing religious instruction to the State schools we are reviving the old form of educational outlook and that has become the deep issue of the modern world. It has become the issue of Western civilisation today, whether the State should have complete control over the deeper forms of the spirit.
I have no hesitation in saying to the State, " Keep your hands off religious instruction completely." If the denominations—my own denomination included want to teach their own form of religion to our young children, I think it is their duty to do it; but let us provide our own schools to do it, let us provide the instructors to do it—but not the State. Times have changed. This House has changed. And that is indicative. I have listened to speech after speech from both sides of the Committee; not repetitive of the position here in the 19th century, —far from it—and I think it is a change for the worse. It is the same change as took place when Hobbes wrote " Leviathan." He developed the argument of St. Ambrose in a way in which St. Ambrose would never have understood it. It is the argument of Hobbes and " Leviathan" that has triumphed throughout Europe and throughout the century; and has gradually taken possession of this country in various forms.
A compromise was reached in 1944. but that compromise is not to be allowed to work. One alternative is that gradually the Church must take possession of the Church schools—that will be the gradual development of it—and the Church becomes the State, which is a retrogressive measure. It will block opinion and free inquiry on the development of science as it did in the Middle Ages—[HoN. MEMBERS: " Oh."]—oh yes. In the alternative, the State will determine the form of religion to be taught, as it is doing in other parts of Europe today. It is one or the other; there are the two issues. Therefore I would make a plea that we do not re-open this issue. I would enter my protest. The State must keep to its own task, and be limited to its own task, and allow the churches and the homes to do theirs.

9.45 p.m.

Commander Maitland: Hope that the hon. and learned Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Hopkin Morris) will


forgive me if I do not follow his remarks in detail. I want to raise a somewhat different point, because today we are talking about the Estimates. We are discussing the provision of money. I want to raise the question of the finance of education in the future. I believe, like my right hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler), that today education is facing a grave crisis. It is largely a financial crisis. In his Budget speech, the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer deliberately drew attention to that when he said:
 …many of our social services are expanding automatically so that the cost increases every year, as for instance with National Insurance and education."—[OFFIcIAL REPORT. 18th April, 1950; Vol. 474, c. 61.]
Anyone who thinks about that for a moment must realise that it is a necessary fact. If we are to follow the road that we have chosen, and if we are to try to put the Butler Act into efficient service, then it is inevitable that in the next few years the cost of education will increase.
That is a fact which we must face. We should tell it to the people who will have to bear the burden. It is unfair for us in this Committee to attempt in any way to conceal from the people the fact that the cost of education is likely to rise. That is particularly true because it is the local authorities which bear at least half the burden, and, through them, the ratepayers have to pay. Of a local authority's budget, probably from 50 per cent. to 60 per cent. is taken up by the cost of education.
I wish to draw attention to this because unless the people fully understand the point, they will not realise to the full the necessity to make vital and necessary economies so that we can get the best and achieve our aim. I should like to develop that point, but time is against me and I must leave it; but the general financial aspect is that there will be an inevitable rise in cost because of the rise in the birth rate, the necessary provision of more schools and the building of improved schools. This will have to take effect however slowly we implement the Butler Act. It must be made plain to all that, if we are to stand to our guns and to develop our education as we should, so that our children have a proper opportunity, the cost of education will rise.
I should like to discuss one point which must put up the cost of the educational budget, in addition to the points I have mentioned. A subject which has been much discussed is that of teachers' salaries. I have not sufficient time in which to develop the reasons why I think it is essential that the basic scale should be raised. The position is pathetic. We all have instances from our own constituencies of men and women teachers who have to go out to other work in order to be able to live and to have the privilege of teaching. We often hear of students in America working their passage in order to gain education, working in their spare time to be able to pay their fees. Surely, it is a complete anomaly that teachers should have to work in their spare time to ensure that they have the privilege of teaching our children.
There is one type of teacher for whom I plead in particular and that is the graduate teacher, particularly the graduate teacher who is teaching the sixth form. It is of great national interest that the sixth form should have the best available instruction. I do not believe that that is the position at the moment. In the last 10 years we have considerably increased the numbers in the sixth form. I have recently seen figures for 500 girls' schools where the numbers in the sixth form had increased by 47 per cent. On the other hand, the number of teachers with first-class honours decreased by 5 per cent., and there was an increase of only 38 per cent. in second-class honours teachers. It is quite obvious that the standard of these very highly qualified graduates in charge of sixth forms is going down, and it is undoubtedly going down because of the standard of salaries which they receive.
One headmistress of a well-known school said to me the other day, " I used to make short lists of assistant teachers, but now assistant teachers make short lists of headmistresses." That is what is happening, and, while it may be a good thing for the teachers, it is not a good thing for the children concerned, and particularly those of the sixth form. We can all give instances of the difficulties of headmasters and headmistresses of grammar schools in their endeavours to obtain masters and mistresses in science, mathematics and the like. They can be produced in countless numbers, and I will not weary the Committee with that point


I should like, in the last ten minutes remaining to me, to suggest a positive way in which we might help the present situation. We have got to face the fact that, in present conditions—we may call it full employment or what we like—the standard of teachers in this country is not as high as we would like it to be, and particularly in regard to some of the higher forms. That must be inevitable under present conditions. Numbers are one thing, but quality is of far greater importance.
I believe there is a way in which we can help. There are various mechanical aids which I do not think myself we have understood sufficiently clearly in this country. I refer particularly to visual aids. I have had a good deal of personal experience of these visual aids and I know from what I have seen in schools for which I have been responsible how greatly improved results can be achieved by their employment. Of course, visual aids can never replace good teaching and teachers themselves have to be instructed how to use them properly and in their technicalities. When this is done, it is really astonishing what an improvement there can be. I have tried to find out, and I think my figures are correct, what we have spent in this direction, and I discovered last year we spent only £30,000 on buying films for educational purposes for the whole of England and Wales. During a similar period, New Zealand, with a population of somewhere about two million, spent £50,000. Those figures help to make one realise that there is an opportunity here to help the teacher in his difficult task.
I want to quote from a very interesting book by Lancelot Hogben called " From Cave Painting to Comic Strip." I cannot go all the way with the author, but what he says is certainly challenging and deserves attention. He wrote:
 In this matter, as in the full use of the film as an instrument of enlightenment, we should not shirk the obligation to emancipate ourselves from a mental muddle perhaps less prevalent in America than in Britain, where it is still fashionable to proclaim the need for better teachers and for smaller classes. Education in a democracy signifies education on a scale so vast as to exclude the possibility of maintaining a high level of originality or talent in the teaching profession without withdrawing gifted personnel from necessary productive activity; and the call for small classes is merely an echo from an age when

a few rich parents could employ private tutors. The brutal truth is that men or women with an outstanding gift for exposition are few, and of such few, very few would willingly embrace the boredom of continual association with children.
The author then goes on to say that all the expository talent which a modern democracy can afford should be engaged in exploiting the new instruments of visual education at our command, and adds:
 In short, hopeful educational innovations are such as make good teachers and small classes less necessary.
Those are very challenging words. No one in this Committee would agree with all of that, but they are challenging, and they should certainly be investigated together with the whole of our programme for developing the visual side of our education at this time in order to help our teachers in their difficulties.
I had meant to make a proper speech, but I have been cut down to a few hurried and very badly expressed remarks. I started on rather a pessimistic note because I thought it my duty to impress on the Committee the inevitability —I am not afraid of that word—of a rise in the cost of education if we intend to keep it at even its present standard, and, of course, we all want to see it improve. I believe that unless the people of this country realise that fact, and unless they are given the opportunity by the Minister and by the local education authority to see what they get for their money, they will not face it in the future. If they know the position, they will be enabled to make the necessary economy. Be that as it may, I still believe that any nation which sells the future, as represented by investment in education, for the desirable things of the present does not deserve a future at all.

9.57 p.m.

Mr. James Johnson: Looking at the clock, I see that time is not on my side, and, therefore, I will gallop. I must apologise if what I say appears staccato. I left my teaching bench some few weeks ago, and I am delighted to hear in this Chamber tonight hon. Members opposite speaking in the way they do about teachers' salaries. I began my teaching career in September, 1931, and had they spoken in that strain then I should have been much happier at that time. It is an ironical commentary on


our modern society that today we are paying the teacher less for the injection of wisdom than we pay the dentist to extract wisdom teeth.
I wish to say a few words about technical education. The right hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler) spoke about the need for more technicians and technologists. I could not agree with him more. We want our industry to be efficient for our export drive. We want to export not merely goods, but also men to the Empire and to the Commonwealth in the shape of efficient technicians and technologists. I do not think that the technical colleges have had a square deal over the last few years in this matter. I believe that universities have been stonewalling against the technical colleges. If we desire the man at the bench to study at the local technical college in his spare time, and even to go as a full time student, we shall have to give him much more in the way of facilities and much more status.
The Percy Committee talked of upgrading the top six technical colleges and making them into institutes of technology like those of Massachusetts, Charlottenburg, Delft or Zurich. I would not go so far as to do that, because, if we are to give our technical colleges this near-university status, we shall have to clear out nearly 80 per cent. of their students, which, in the main, are—and I say this with diffidence—school certificate rejects. We should also have to clear out quite a large percentage of the staff who are not university graduates, and who cannot teach the required level. But there is a strong case for taking two of our technical colleges and making them institutes of technology and having a degree of Bachelor of Technology. In that way this country could have something comparable to Zurich, Charlottenburg, or California, and have courses longer in time to enable us to turn out the people we so badly need in this modern age when we have to compete, not merely with America and with Soviet Russia, but with many other Continental countries who are efficient in this modern technical age.
I should like to say a word about salaries. They work very long shifts in technical colleges. One might call them spread-over shifts from about nine

o'clock at night. The work includes looking after technical equipment. A different salary scale is needed in a technical institute. As a member of the National Union of Teachers I am being a little venturesome when I say I believe in differentiation. University graduates with first-class honours and people in technical institutes should have a scale superior to that applied to teachers in secondary schools. The work is different, the qualifications are different and, if we are going to get the people we want, both in the sixth forms of secondary schools and in technical colleges there must be better salaries.
The exodus is very much more in the technical colleges than it is in the secondary school sixth forms. The lecturer in technical institutes is not merely a teacher but also a technical man with Ph.D., M.Sc. and other degrees. He is an indusrial chemist, a surveyor, builder or engineer. Today industry is tempting that type of man out of the teaching profession with £200 or £250 more in salary. The problem is not only one of keeping that type of man in the profession but of attracting people into teaching.
I should also like to deal with the point mentioned by the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) about international understanding and the cementing of friendship among the peoples of the world. There are many who say that national meetings do not serve this purpose, but I am a believer in international sport and international contacts of all kinds. I took school camps to Germany, France and elsewhere for many years before the war. I am happy to see those camps are beginning to be held once more. I think they serve a useful purpose in making our ideals, customs and ways familiar to people on the Continent, and vice versa.
I should like to read part of a letter my old headmaster has sent me. He had taken a party of boys once again to the Continent. He says:
 I took 45 boys from school to Paris this Easter and the French Ministry of Education went out of its way to see that we (along with many other English schools) were given excellent accommodation in the biggest boarding school in France (Lycee Janson de Sailly, 106, Rue de la Pompe, Paris, XVI). French teachers and senior pupils were placed at our disposal as guides, and at the official reception and dinner the children had good wine and


a bottle of champagne at each table. (I only mention this detail to show how kind was their hospitality). The Lycée Janson is the official ' centre of welcome' for foreign children. The size of it you can gather from the fact that there are 3,400 pupils. It was originally built by a rich man called Janson de Sailly who quarrelled with his wife and family and left all his money to found this colossal school.
The point I am making is that we want more international exchange of youngsters. If we start that in their younger years we shall have more amity when they become adults.

10.5 p.m.

Captain John Crowder: I shall not detain the Committee very long because time is short, but I should like to say how much I agree with the excellent speech made by the hon. Member for Edge Hill (Mr. Irvine). He suggested that the managers of Church schools were frightened that the Government were trying to freeze them out because they cannot afford to pay what is demanded by the Ministry of Education. I was glad to hear the Minister say that he was sympathetic and would do all he could within the framework of the 1944 Act. I am not sure what the position is now as regards Form 18. I hope managers will not be asked to sign a form which looks rather like a contract, although the Minister says it really is not a contract. Perhaps he will see whether he can alter the wording slightly.
I hope that if the Church of England, the Roman Catholic Church and the Free Churches come to some agreement, the Minister will receive their suggestions sympathetically. The need for adequate religious instruction in our schools is greater today than it ever has been before, and especially would I say that religious training is even more important than instruction. It is the atmosphere in the schools which counts so much, and the link between Church and school goes back to the early history of. the Church in this country. We have a great tradition and history behind us to maintain. The Church schools have deep roots in the history of England and are a heritage of which we can rightly be proud.
Of course, the circumstances have altered very much in the last 50 years, because the State has increasingly assumed the responsibility of educating

the children of the nation. The resources which are available to the State are infinitely greater than anything that the Churches can command today. I am afraid that the result has been that many people, Church people included, have said on occasion that the Church has now done its job and can hand over its duty to the State. I would never agree to the majority of our schools being handed over to the State, even if we are assured that some Christian teaching will be given. The Minister said that he knows that the financial demands now made on the Church are various and great and that the schools programme confronting the Church is enormous in these days of rising costs.
I sympathise with the teachers of Church schools who say that a Church school is likely to fall behind the county schools in its buildings, accommodation and amenities. There is, of course, a great deal in this, but in spite of this, the Church men cannot hand over all education and all schools to the State if that can possibly be avoided. As regards buildings and accommodation, while they should be the best possible, there is a real danger in thinking that good and expensive buildings in themselves make a really good school.
If education is to be Christian in character, it must fulfil two conditions. First, the Christian faith must permeate the whole atmosphere and life of the school. It must be the atmosphere within which the specific religious instruction is given. What children are specifically taught they readily forget. What remains throughout their lives is the atmosphere in which they have been taught. Archbishop Temple said on a number of occasions that there was a real distinction between religious instruction and religious education. Many good Church men and women, and Christians of other denominations, teach in county schools, but there are no reasons for saying that the Church schools have no further part to play. I believe that the Church schools have an influence far beyond their own boundary. The Church through its schools is right within the whole educational system.
We may not be able to maintain the aided schools unless the cost of building comes down. The controlled schools have their role, but I am afraid they will fall away from Church connections,


which would be a calamity, and therefore I plead with the Minister to do everything he can to help the aided schools. I hope he will also do everything he can to enable the Churches to maintain the aided schools. We cannot live on the spiritual capital of the past. We must put the Christian ethic and spiritual values first and think not only of material considerations. Our Church schools are an outward and visible sign as well as a strong bulwark of the spiritual central view of all education. Therefore I ask the Minister to do all he can within the framework of the 1944 Act to help, guide and advise the managers of Church schools in order to make things easier for them.
Circumstances have changed since the 1944 Act was passed and every hon. Member who has spoken has admitted that building costs are up by 300 per cent. The rebuilding of our schools cannot take place for some years. That being so, I am glad the Minister is considering modifications of the building regulations. I would also like him to consider taking over the liability of providing all the sanitary arrangements of assembly halls, playgrounds and dining halls, leaving only the running of the classrooms to be a charge on the managers. Finally, I ask him to do every thing he can to help the Church schools to continue, because I believe they are vital for the future good of the children of this country.

10.11 p.m.

Mr. Hollis: I have great sympathy for those hon. Members who complain that whenever we have an educational Debate, we never seem to be able to talk about education. There is a great danger in this continual talking about the machinery of education without considering what it is that education is about.
The other day I read of some exuberant boys and girls in the City of Glasgow who met at a conference and demanded that they should be taught something useful. " Oh, yes," said the masters at the conference; " What would you like to be taught? " They said, " We should like to be taught astrology." They thought that then they would be able to pick the winners of the Derby. As I have said, there is great danger if we ignore altogether the consideration of what it is that education is about. I

have great sympathy with that Fiji chief who came to the United States and was horrified to find the children of that benighted country incarcerated in institutions from the age of 6 to 16. He said, " That is just the time in life when they ought to be learning something."
Nevertheless it always comes about that there is some important matter of machinery that we have to discuss, and I will therefore ask the pardon of the Committee in speaking about the question of denominational schools, about which we have heard so much. Anyone understands very little of this question who imagines that it is an easy question which a Minister of Education, in order to settle, needs merely a little courage and a vocabulary of a few monosyllables. That is far from true. Indeed, I find myself in great agreement with the speech of the hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove)—a thing which I do not recollect to have happened before, so I pay tribute to it—in so far as he spoke about the complexity of the situation. It is sufficiently obvious that it is complex, if only from this fact, that if we look around the world we find what completely different solutions are found for this problem in almost every country.
We see that free countries vary in their solutions, from such countries as Scotland and Holland, which give the fullest financial support to denominational schools, to such countries as Australia and the United States which give no financial support to the denominational schools. If we look at the Protestant bodies, we find that in some countries they claim the fullest financial support. Other Protestants, taking the point of view of the hon. and learned Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Hopkin Morris), think it a danger which they would reject even if it were offered to them. If we look at the Catholics all over the world, we find in some countries, such as Alsace, that they are content to work in an inter-denominational school system. In other countries they want their own schools, but are prepared to have inter-denominational universities. Again, in other countries we find they want both denominational schools and denominational universities.
I say that not to criticise other countries, but merely to prove that the situation is indeed an extremely complex one,


and the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Morley) was, of course, perfectly right in saying that in this country that matter was settled by a compromise. Who could argue otherwise? My right hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler) would be the first to agree that when we pay 50 per cent. of the maintenance of the schools, that figure of 50 per cent. was not a divinely revealed truth precluding it from being 40 per cent. or 60 per cent. Of course, the hon. Member is perfectly right. It was settled by compromise. He is also perfectly right when he says that in that compromise there is a large number of things for which the denominations have every reason to feel grateful, and no instructed supporter of the denominational schools is in any mood to challenge that.
But there are two things to which the Government are committed in this respect. For one thing, they are committed to give to the voluntary schools the privileges which are granted to them by the 1944 Act and the other Acts of Parliament on the Statute Book. I do not think there is any sort of mentality in any part of the Committee which wishes to challenge them in those rights. Beyond that, the Government are also, I think, committed to this very important thing, that by no mere accidental change of circumstances shall the voluntary schools be administered out of existence.
I use that phrase because -it is an excellent phrase in itself, and also because it is a phrase which happens to carry very peculiar authority in this controversy, because it was first used by the Home Secretary, when he was Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education, in reference to the Anglican schools, and secondly it was used by my right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill), at the time of the last election, in regard to Catholic schools, and therefore it is a phrase which, as it were, is consecrated on both sides of the Committee and applies to both denominations.
Therefore, what we have to consider is whether such circumstances are in existence or are likely to come into existence. Of course, it is obviously true that anyone whose conscience imposes upon him an obligation to support denominational schools is, in a sense, under a certain handicap in doing so. I do not

think it is necessarily a bad thing that there should be the handicap, because I think it would be a very bad thing for any Christian denomination if the circumstances were such that it was entirely to anyone's financial advantage to belong to it. Therefore, I do not think that the handicap is necessarily a bad thing. The question is whether or not it is, or is likely to prove, a crushing handicap that is likely to make the situation impossible and unworkable.
As hon. Members know, at the time of the 1944 Act there was, of course, a good deal of debate and estimate about what would be the cost of this settlement to the denominational schools. As far as the Catholic schools—I simply mention them in passing, because I do not for one moment think the subject should be approached simply as a Catholic problem or as an Anglican problem: I agree with hon. Members who say we must approach it as a general problem of the denominations—but as far as the Catholic schools are concerned, the right hon. Gentleman who is now the Minister of Works, and who then occupied a less responsible and more vociferous position in this Chamber, challenged that figure very violently. I saw last week in a Czechoslovak Communist paper that it writes of that right hon. Gentleman that,
He is a Catholic and a capitalist, and he tries to be very careful to avoid any attention.
If that be his character since he has had greatness thrust upon him, all I can say is that it was not a prominent trait in his character in 1944. Anyway, he challenged those figures, as we know, and whatever may have been the rights or wrongs of the matter then, we have to face the fact that building costs in these years since the war have proved to be most crushingly heavy.
To my mind, that does provide—and now I must begin to diverge a little from the hon. Member for Aberavon; I cannot agree with him for the whole of my speech—a new circumstance which at any rate merits consideration. What should we do about it? I quite agree that the solution is not to scrap entirely the legislation of 1944. If I were to advocate that, I should be out of order in this Debate. In any case, it is the very last thing I wish to advocate, for very obvious reasons. First, there is obviously a particular political situation at the moment


which would clearly make it not practical politics to do that; and there is a particular financial situation at the moment which would also clearly not make it practical politics to do it.
Those are two important and weighty arguments, but more important even than those arguments, in my opinion, is the argument of the climate of opinion. That is to say, the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen, was again perfectly right. We may agree or disagree with his point of view, but we cannot shut our eyes to the fact that he was speaking for a very considerable body of opinion, and it would be quite impossible to re-open this settlement without splitting the nation from top to bottom on sectarian lines in a way which, in my view, would be extremely undesirable. That is why I would not favour the total re-opening of the settlement today, even if the political and financial situations were different from what they are.
Although that is the situation today, and although no man can foresee the future, particularly in such times as these, I very much doubt whether it will be the situation in some years to come. I think that we are moving into a new world. I think that these old sectarian differences are to a very large extent based upon social problems of the 1870's which are becoming increasingly unreal. I think that partly for happy reasons and partly for unhappy reasons. It is hardly a sane opinion any more to believe all sorts of things which our grandfathers could have believed. It is hardly sane any longer for any Catholic to believe in the modern world that Protestantism is the main enemy of the Christian religion, or for any Protestant to believe that Catholicism is the main enemy of the Christian religion. [Laughter.] I do not know why hon. Members should laugh; it was an opinion that it was possible to hold—at any rate, many people did bring themselves to hold it in the middle of the 19th Century—but it is an opinion which it is not possible to hold today.
These sectarian differences did, as has already been said, bedevil all educational politics right up till at any rate the 1914 War, greatly to the disaster of religion, politics and education. If we read the Debates of Mr. Balfour's day, when the House was discussing very important educational schemes, including setting up

secondary schools, we find that hardly anything was said about those things. The whole thing was entirely dominated by this sectarian issue. Then came the 1914–18 War and a Coalition Government—they called it a Coalition Government then not a National Government—and Mr. Fisher was made Minister of Education. That, apparently, gave an opportunity to settle, or at any rate to try to settle, these matters on a nonsectarian basis.
I remember—it is a curious recollection, but it is one of the earliest pieces of reading that sticks in my mind—reading a speech by Mr. McKenna congratulating Mr. Fisher upon having this opportunity. Hon. Members may think my nursery reading was highly peculiar, but that is one of my first memories. Anyway, those days are not wholly passed away, but if this Debate has proved nothing else it has proved how near they are to passing away, and how we can discuss these problems in a very different temper from the temper in which they were discussed in the days of Mr. Birrell, or Mr. Balfour, or still more in the early days when Joseph Chamberlain was still a member of the Radical Party.
The hope is that if we do not re-open old wounds now but allow a little more time to elapse, we shall come into a world when all sorts of things can be done by general agreement which cannot quite be done by general agreement today. In 1970 all sorts of things may have happened. There may be a General Election by then, or some hon. Members opposite may be in another place. For that reason, I seriously favour postponing the attempt to deal with the general longterm philosophical issue at this moment. People will then say: " Why bring it up? " Anyone who has sat through this Debate knows the answer to that. Something has got to be done at the moment, because there is an immediate financial problem and there is this obligation put upon the managers of the voluntary schools to maintain those places.
Hon. Members have spoken about the matter and I need not tell the story all over again, but we must deal with the short-term problem in such ways as we can, because of all compromises the worst would be if we tried to satisfy the friends of religion by helping them to keep the


voluntary schools open and to satisfy the friends of economy by making the voluntary schools unable to do their job. We want to avoid that. It is important that we should examine what should be done within the boundaries of the present settlement in order to improve the position, and I think a good deal more can be done than some people think.
I am not dictating terms, but am merely throwing out suggestions, and I should be very grateful if the Parliamentary Secretary could tell us whether the Government are willing to consider the points. The Minister, for instance, told us about the payment of transport fees. I entirely agree with him that the record in general is a good one but there are certain local education authorities who are a little bit obstinate about that. There is the question of children who get scholarships not being allowed to go to boarding schools. Religious preference by itself does not constitute a sufficient reason to justify the payment of boarding and tuition fees to enable a child to go to a particular school. We must see to it that this does not lead to the ridiculous results which it does at present. If I am a Catholic and my boy wins a scholarship, I may want him to board, but because I am a model father the education committee will not pay the cost; but if I beat my wife and get drunk four times a day then I make my home an undesirable place and the local authority will provide the money for him to go to a boarding school. That is not a very sensible arrangement.
There is the question of the exact definition of what are school buildings. My right hon. Friend made reference to the sanitation problem, and he was a little pessimistic about whether much would come out of exploring that avenue. It may be he is right, but I call the attention of the Committee to the fact that there is a good deal of legislative freedom already vested in the Minister, not so much by the Act of 1944, but by the Act of 1946, Section 4 of which lays down what the expression " school buildings " means and adds that
it does not include any building or part of a building required only as a caretaker's dwelling; for use in connection with playing fields; for affording facilities for enabling the local education authority to carry out their functions with respect to medical inspection or of treatment"—

that is next door to sanitation—
 or for affording facilities for providing milk, meals or other refreshments for pupils in attendance at the school.
As will be seen, there is a little bit of flexibility and generosity.
There is also, as the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Leslie Hale) said in his excellent speech, the question of transferred schools. What is a new school and what is a transferred school? There, again, there are many borderline cases. It is by no means clear and there is great room for generosity. Then comes the general question upon which the Minister made his pronouncement today about Form 18. Here again a great deal can be done, and more than some people take into account, within the ambit of present legislation, because in 1948 we passed the Education (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act by which we amended Section 10 of the 1944 Act. There we said:
 Provided that, if the Minister is satisfied with respect to any school … that having regard to the nature of the existing site or to any existing buildings thereon or to other special circumstances affecting the school premises it would be unreasonable to require conformity with a requirement of the regulations as to any matter … he may give a direction that, notwithstanding that that requirement is not satisfied, the school shall, whilst the direction remains in force, be deemed to conform to the prescribed standards.
Therefore, the Minister has a considerable power within present legislation which doubtless covers the reforms of Form 18 which he announced to the House today.
As regards these reforms, we want a certain time to study them and see what they amount to. It is an obvious criticism of them that though they postpone, they do not lessen the obligation on the voluntary schools, and it may be that some people will criticise them on that ground. I do not see that they are in any way invalidated for that reason, because I believe that when we get to the future —unknowable in this as in other topics—but it is extremely important to have a solution which frees them from an intolerable burden here and now.
Speaking entirely for myself and with no authority, I very much welcome the right hon. Gentleman's concessions, though we have frankly to face the fact that they do not altogether meet, as he is no doubt aware, the full demands of the


managers of the voluntary schools. What I should like to get clear, and perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to tell us, is this. When the building is not to take place for more than ten years, the school can get aided status here and now by producing prima facie evidence that it will produce 25 per cent. of the cost of the eventual buildings. What happens if, after ten years, it proves impossible to find the other 75 per cent.? What happens to the original money and the status of- the school? I should be grateful if the Parliamentary Secretary could enlighten us on that point.
Like other hon. Members who have spoken, I have deliberately kept my speech unimpassioned and on a minor key, because I think it is on that key that these matters should be discussed. I do not do that because I consider the matter to be unimportant; on the contrary, I consider it to be one of the most vital importance, I entirely agree with the excellent maiden speech of the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, South-West (Mr. G. Longden). Fundamentally this country is a Christian country and our survival, the whole survival of civilisation, depends on our remaining so, but in order that we should remain a Christian country, not one but two things are necessary. It would be a simple problem if only one was necessary.
First, it is necessary that the religious basis of our education be preserved; and secondly, it is necessary, if it can possibly be done, to preserve that religious basis without splitting the country along lines of sectarian strife, which we cannot afford in these days. Anyone who has come across it in any other country will, I think, agree. Sectarian politics are the most evil things on the face of the earth. There you have the little hiss which only comes from Hell. I think we are entitled to appeal with confidence to people in every part of the country to work out these difficult problems with the maximum of keenness, but also with the maximum of tolerance.
When the right hon. Gentleman has further propositions to lay before the House, we must reserve the right to say what we may find it necessary to say about them; but I hope sincerely that he is able to adopt the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Oldham, West, and to conduct negotiations with the

heads of all religious bodies. If he does so, speaking for myself, I certainly wish him God speed in the task.

10.36 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education (Mr. Hardman): This is the first major speech which I have made in this Parliament. I would like to congratulate hon. Members on both sides of the Committee for the contributions which they have made to the Debate. Especially may I congratulate those hon. Members who have made maiden speeches and, in doing so, have ventured upon the wide field of the edu cational estimates. Those of us who have taken part in these Debates during the past four or five years know the many pitfalls in the high sounding phrases, pompous moralisings and general clichés so common in the educational world, but I think we may say that we have not had many examples of such moralisings or cliché in this Debate.
One of the greatest difficulties in replying to a Debate of this kind is to know what hon. Members will raise. I was certain that something would be asked about corporal punishment, and what investigations are being made in that field. I was certain, too, that we would hear a great deal about youth service and adult education, and that we would certainly be asked to tell the Committee how the development plans were going. Unfortunately, those beliefs are all misses as far as the speeches in this Debate are concerned, and I have to confine myself, to begin with, to one or two major problems which I did not anticipate would play such a great part in the Debate.
In one respect, our annual Debate on the Education Estimates has been rather disappointing. I refer to the interruption of our proceedings earlier tonight. I cannot see that it can be considered a compliment to the Ministry of Education, or to its Ministers, that we should have an interruption of this kind. It is not the first Debate on the Education Estimates in which interruption has taken place. To do anything like justice to the problems which we face, I maintain that we require at least three separate Debates. There should be one, for instance, on the education of school children, primary and secondary, and certainly one whole day's


Debate on technical and further education. I think it is high time that we had a Debate on the impact of the universities on the schools, and I welcome very much the suggestion of the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Leslie Hale) that we should have a Debate some time on the content of education. These are all burning topics on which we want the considered opinions of the hon. Members of the Committee or of the House.
In my reply to the Debate which we have had today, there are these two major issues of which I have spoken. I am going to be frank, in facing them, in telling hon. Members of the Committee that I do not intend to say much about them. There is the question of the denominational schools, and there is the question of the salaries of members of the teaching profession. In regard to the first of these, I echo very warmly the sentiments of the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Hollis) who spoke last for hon. Members on the other side of the Committee. I applaud the general tolerance and desire to make the Act work, because I am certain that we can find a workable solution. I believe that we can do it without disturbing the general compromise reached in the Act of 1944.
I am certain, also, that whatever changes may be made, either immediately or in the years ahead, they must be changes agreeable to all denominations. That is the pledge which I gave in the election, and that is the pledge I shall stick to, should the matter arise at any future election. I was interested in the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Oldham, West, and by the hon. Member for Devizes about the possibility of calling together the various interested parties. On behalf of the Minister and myself, I can say right away that we shall certainly look into that suggestion; but I would caution hon. Members of the Committee that it has been tried before.
I think it was Charles Trevelyan, when President of the old Board of Education, who had such a meeting; I was, of course, on the outside then, but from reports which I have read and heard of since, it appears that it was not quite as amicable a gathering as we might get together today. So, with that warning, I can promise that we shall certainly be prepared to look into the matter, and

even the possibility of bringing together representatives of the various bodies concerned; of the National Union of Teachers, the Church of England, the Roman Catholic Church, the Free Churches, and so on, and I hope that we shall be wiser than in 1931.
It is also important to remember, while we are on this subject of denominational schools, and doing what we can within the administrative scheme without disturbing the compromise of the 1944 Act, that where there are expanding State subsidies there tend to be increasing obligations; sometimes, perhaps, even curtailment of liberty.
The right hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler) stressed the importance of maintaining the liberty of the teacher, and I assume he was referring also to this liberty of conscience. I trust that the leaders, and especially the leaders of minorities, will pay due regard to the lessons of history in this respect. Religious liberty is worth a lot of courage and resource to defend. This afternoon, the Minister has shown that it need not mean, in terms of material resources, great expenditure to the denominations concerned. The hon. Member for Devizes —who wound up for the Opposition—although Opposition is hardly the right word in a Debate on education—referred to several matters which, I assure him, have come to the notice of my right hon. Friend and myself—as is natural after they have been drawn to the attention of hon. Members. They included the transport of children, the parents' right in the choice of education, and " transferred schools."
May I suggest to the hon. Member and other hon. Members, that in the light of this Debate, we are prepared to look still further into what possible changes can take place within the administrative ambit of the Act? As he has said, we are living in an age of much greater tolerance, and as a religious person, belonging to a minority, I would include all minorities, so that we can have complete liberty of conscience. If we tolerate various religious views and admit that all have a right to conscience, I think we can find a way out of the difficulty which faces the denominational schools, which is the main problem which has concerned us in this Debate. We would all agree


that those who hold liberty of conscience have a right to its maintenance and that we should not administer denominational schools, or minorities with a right of conscience, out of existence in any field of national life at all.
In commenting upon the discussion on the suggested increases in teachers' salaries, I have only this to say, and I have said it many times before in answering questions or in replying to Debates of this kind. The Burnham Committee is, as has been reiterated again and again, an independent body, and on all sides, and certainly in the field of education, whatever our particular organisation may be, we value its independence and intend to maintain it. All sections of the educational world wish to preserve its independence.
I may be forgiven perhaps, while on this topic, if I say that, as one who belongs to a teaching family and who has been a teacher myself, I can understand the difficulties that face members of the teaching profession today regarding remuneration. I follow the speeches we have heard from Members on both sides of the Committee when I say there is a very real and genuine sympathy for the teachers' position. Such sympathy as I feel for them, I feel also for the thousands in my constituency outside the teaching profession, who are trying to make ends meet in similar straitened circumstances. There is a section of our population which is finding it extremely difficult to maintain standards and to make ends meet in a reasonable way.
From other speeches that we have heard, certain subjects loom large in the present educational field besides this. One of them certainly is the question of school buildings. I would remind the Committee of what the Minister has already said, that it was only at the very end of 1949 that the L.E.As. reached the target allowed them by the national investment programme. It is surely our duty to make it clear that it is impossible to fulfil the L.E.A.'s estimates in terms of building at the present time, although the savings that were made in the educational building programme last autumn did not touch the urgent need for school places and extension of facilities for technical education.
It has been disappointing that because of curtailment of expenditure we have had to stop school meal buildings at existing schools and the building of community centres. The actual amount of this cut for 1950 is E5–f millions, or 10 per cent. Only half a million pounds of it falls on the main part of the programme, involving no reduction whatever in the number of new school places to be provided. As it is, as the Minister has pointed out, we would get the same number of places for less money. I suggest it is necessary for all the local education authorities to follow where some of the best have led and to appreciate the changes that have taken place in architectural measures, in design, and materials that can be used nowadays.
The noble Lady the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Viscountess Davidson) referred to Hertfordshire. There are other local education authorities, also, one or two of which, even before the war, experimented in school buildings with non-traditional materials and in terms of modern architecture, structure and design. It does not mean that because we can cut down the rate per place and because we use modern materials and designs, we shall shape schools into the modern schools to which the noble Lady and others have referred from time to time.
The types of building with which local education authorities are concerned are, in my view, still better than most of the other traditional schools, some of which boast a very high and long tradition in the independent school system. The local education authorities can with great advantage take advantage of the mass-produced unit school such as those built and produced at the British Aeroplane Company's works, the Integrated Construction Co. Ltd.'s " Intercon " school, the Hill school, the " Uniseco " and others which are now appearing in increasing quantities.
The right hon. Member for Saffron Walden and others in the Debate have referred to the question of the closure of village schools. I want to assure them that I feel as strongly as they do on that, having been on a rural education authority for many years and for a time having been its vice-chairman. We are prepared to give full publicity locally to any suggestion in a development plan that a village school should be closed. We


have sympathy at the Ministry for the village, very often remote, with an excellent schoolmistress and sometimes a young assistant who is being brought up in the same tradition, and where the school contributes very much to the best kind of village life of which English people can feel proud.
Mention has been made by the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Watkinson) and the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. J. Johnson) of the field of technical education. I have been asked to say something about advanced technology. I cannot at this late hour spend very much time upon this subject, but I would suggest that there is some confusion over the consideration of it. There is not one problem here, but two. There is the question of whether we are to have a technological university, for example, like the Massachusetts Institute of Technology: that is a matter for the University Grants Committee, and does not fall within the province of the Ministry of Education.
Then there is the question what steps should be taken to enable the major technical colleges to play their part more effectively in this field of education and I think that I can support wholeheartedly. on behalf of my right hon. Friend and the Ministry of Education, all those who have insisted that we must not thwart the expansion, progress and development of technical education in all its phases, especially in its highest conception in the years that lie ahead in the implementation of the 1944 Act.
I had hoped to give a report on the school meals service, to try to explain what is taking place in regard to the number of children now taking school meals and the slight diminution in uptake in various parts of the country. I have here before me what I think is a very fine report of progress in that most valuable field in education, of what we can do for the handicapped child, but time will not allow me to say what I would want to say upon these extremely important topics.
I was extremely interested in the reference of the hon. and gallant Member for Horncastle (Commander Maitland) to visual aids, and his own experience in the showing of visual aids in education. I, too, have some experience of the use.of the film and the strip film and, in

earlier days, of what, after all, was visual education in very good hands—those of the village schoolmaster—of the magic lantern and slides. I agree wholeheartedly with the view that we must enable visual aids to become part of every school in the land, but I claim that in this field, again, considerable progress has been made. It is not to be summed up merely in the amount of money spent on the manufacture or use of films. There are go-ahead local authorities which have their own technicians and are making films that teachers want for particular schools in various parts of the authorities' areas, and those do not come into the expenditure to which the hon. and gallant Gentleman refers.
My last point—and I can perhaps be forgiven for saying something about it because it has been raised by hon. Members on both sides of the Committee—concerns, inevitably, the content of education. Hon. Members will have read the result of the inquiry into the lives of 80,000 teen-agers in the City of Birmingham—an inquiry undertaken by the Rev. Bryan Reed, of Westhill College, with the help of the staff and students of the college. They say:
The lives of 80 per cent. of Britain's adolescent boys and girls are empty and barren rather than anti-social and vicious,
and suggests that
 About 25 per cent. of the boys and 20 per cent. of the girls have not read a book during the last six months.
Those books are popular which have already appeared in films. " Forever Amber," and " No Orchids for Miss Blandish " are two examples. The suggestion is that
 The general picture is depressing. It has astonished us that the standard of writing and spelling among so many of these young people should be so poor and that the reading of so many should be limited to ' comics '.
The general impression is that of sheet intellectual poverty. It is impossible to question the need of a service of youth.
I think it also calls upon educationists to look closely at the content of education for the service of youth. What has been happening in the schooldays of these children—many of whom are very glad when their last day at school arrives and they can go into the world?
We are always being told that the school and home make an indelible im-


pression on the very young. As educationists, are we sure that the average boy and girl is getting the right thing from days at school? I myself am not satisfied. In one week a boy of 15 can be required to follow this timetable: German or Latin, five periods; English, four periods; French, four periods; history, three periods; geography, two periods; chemistry or economics, two periods; mathematics, five periods, physical training, one period; religious instruction, one period; games, one afternoon week.
I think that the tendency in our schools and teaching profession which has grown up as a reaction to the old narrow conception of teaching the " three Rs " is of teaching far too many subjects. In my view, we fall down by trying to teach subjects particularly in the academic way. To our boys under 16 we should have subjects, I suggest, which seem to impinge on their daily lives, and are concerned with that contemporary life which they have to live. The old dictum that talk and chalk sharpen the mind is completely out-dated, and within the Ministry of Education's ambit I place my faith on the breaking of new ground, especially in the secondary modern school, in relation to the question of new and up-to-date buildings—and on the reexamination. as soon as possible, of the content of education.

It being Eleven o'Clock, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress, and ask leave to sit again.

Committee report Progress: to sit again Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — SERVICE LEAVE PARTIES (MOTOR COACHES)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn."— (Mr. Delargv.]

11.1 p.m.

Mr. John Hay: This House is always sympathetic to the claims of Service men and women, and tonight I wish to draw attention to the discontinuance, at the instance of Regional Transport Commissioners, of certain motor-coach facilities for serving men and women who have wished in the past to make use of them for the purpose of

travelling to their homes when they had weekend leave. The Minister of Transport has had a rather busy week and I shall be as moderate as I possibly can. I can assure him that his ordeal of Monday night will not be repeated.
Those who are caused by reason of their service to live away from home want the quickest and the cheapest method of travelling they can get and also one which gives them the most time at home. Accordingly, over the course of the past few years those who have been stationed away from home have, from time to time, arranged to charter private motor coaches to take them from their station to the nearest large town, often London, from which they can get more easily and quickly to their homes. This method of travel has given considerable advantages. The coaches have been able to leave when required, and the travelling has been extremely comfortable. The fares have been in many cases substantially cheaper than those by rail, and of course the coaches are far more speedy in some cases, and certainly are more reliable than the trains often are.
This being the situation, some little time ago—I have been unable to trace exactly when—the Regional Transport Commissioners, for whom the Minister of Transport admits he is responsible, apparently in consultation with the Service Departments decreed that this type of service should be brought to an end and alternative arrangements made for the transport and travel of these men and women by rail instead. The reason given —and I am not going to dispute it—was that it would save a considerable amount of petrol.
I want to give the House an example of how this particular arrangement has affected one Service establishment especially, of which I have personal knowledge since it is in my constituency. It is the Royal Naval Air Station at Culham in Oxfordshire, which is between two and three miles from Abingdon. It is manned mainly from the Medway towns and Southend
Formerly they used each weekend a motor coach which they chartered by private arrangement without intervention by their officers or the Admiralty. On Saturdays the men get weekend leave from about lunch-time. They took the


coach when they were ready and went direct to Victoria Station, which took them about one and half hours. Thence they went by train, most of them to Chatham. On Sunday nights the coach waited for the train leaving Chatham at 10.54 p.m. and arriving at Victoria Station at midnight. The coach was always waiting when the train arrived from Chatham.
Another point is the question of cost. When the men travelled by coach the return fare was a modest 8s. 6d. There was the fuel consumption on that journey. The right hon Gentleman. answering a Question by me on 24th April, said that the amount used each weekend in driving this motor coach to London and bringing these men back the following day was 22 gallons. I realise that that figure cannot be treated in isolation, as the right hon. Gentleman pointed out, but I am going to say something more later about the fuel position.
These men are now forced to use the train. There is a small railway station at Culham, on the direct line from the Midlands to London, and a train now stops specially at 12.55 p.m. on Saturdays, but often this train is late in arriving at Culham, and often it is late in arriving in London, and consequently these men miss the connections they need to get to their homes. There is the further point that the train does not go to Victoria but to Paddington, and the men have to make their way across London.
I am told that nine times out of ten the train is so overcrowded when it arrives at Culham that they have to stand in the corridors, which is in great contrast to the almost luxurious ease with which they used to travel in the motor coach, a not inconsiderable point after a hard week's duty. On the Sunday these men have to catch a train from Chatham to Victoria, which again is often late—the right hon. Gentleman will agree that this is an unsatisfactory line in many ways—and have again to make their way from Victoria to Paddington. The result is that they have to catch, not the 10.54 p.m. train they used to catch, but the 9.54, because they have to be certain of having time to get across London to catch the train from Paddington at 12.55 a.m. to get back to Culham.
I have given this case in some detail because I want to explain to the Minister and to the House, in as temperate a way as I can, the great difficulty these men are in. They find that they have far less time at home than they used to have, they have considerable inconvenience in travelling, and in addition, as against the former fare of 8s. 6d., they have to pay 1 ls., which is half a day's pay to most of them. When we are asking men to join the Forces and trying to give them every inducement we can, it is surely wrong that such hindrances as this should be put in their way.
There is also a Royal Air Force station at Abingdon. The men there have also travelled direct by coach to London, but now they have to go by coach to Didcot, some 30 minutes journey away, and from there they have to go by rail to Paddington, and that journey takes about an hour and a quarter. Formerly, they were able to do the whole journey in less time, and they travelled at a cheaper fare and in comfort.
I am told that in the Southern Command area there are nine camps where this restriction has been put into force. Sixteen motor-coach proprietors who formerly carried the traffic have been instructed that they are to discontinue, and others have been requested to stop, and have complied. I have asked a number of questions on this point; and I got the answer from the Minister that it is simply to save petrol. He puts it like this: the coach goes from Culham to London and returns empty on the Saturday, and similarly on the Sunday it travels empty to London and brings its load back. Putting it on one basis, one may say that the restriction saves 11 gallons, the amount consumed running empty; on the other basis, the right hon. Gentleman may say that 22 gallons are saved.
Is this really worth while, when the hardship is great? If I choose, I can go to any motor-coach proprietor and charter a coach to go anywhere I like every weekend, and so far as I know, there is no law, regulation or rule to prevent me. Last weekend the Metropolis was inundated with motor-coach parties from the Midlands and the North to see the F.A. Cup Final. I should be the last person to say people should not be able


to travel by motor coach to see a Cup Final, but I cannot see why there should be a distinction between the ordinary civilian who wishes to travel to a sporting event and Service men, who have great difficulty in making their views known because they are subject to discipline and it is often difficult for them to ventilate their grievances.
The last series of Questions I put to the right hon. Gentleman on this subject were on 24th April, and on the following day the Ministry made a statement to the effect that the 12½ per cent. cut in fuel which had been imposed two years ago upon motor-coach proprietors and companies was to be restored. The statement said:
The 12½½ per cent. cut in the fuel ration for buses and coaches used on excursions and tours and private party work is to be restored in full from 1st June.
I ask the Minister: why not now restore this service? If it is possible to give this 12½ per cent. back to the motor-coach proprietors, surely it should be possible to give this great convenience to these Service men in camps up and down the country. I hope the Minister will reconsider the position, because it is obvious that the petrol supply situation must be easier, otherwise it would be impossible for him to announce the restoration of that cut I hope he will think again about this whole scheme and that he will be able to announce some relaxation. I assure him that this is causing a great deal of unrest and discontent among Service men. These men go out and talk to their friends and relatives and naturally a bad reputation is soon spread around.
I have not put this matter on the basis on which it might have been put—namely, that the intention behind this restriction is to drive the traveller towards the railways. When my right hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden) directed a Question to the Minister on this point on 3rd June last, the right hon. Gentleman gave the assurance that this was not so, and I accept it wholeheartedly; but if we are certain there is more fuel available, and yet the right hon. Gentleman still says the services cannot be restored, then, with the best will in the world, I should be irresistibly driven to the conclusion

that fuel saving is not the only reason. But I am certain the Minister will reconsider this matter sympathetically. I hope that in the light of the arguments I have had the opportunity of deploying, he will tell us tonight that he will look at the whole scheme and restore these much-needed services to these men.

11.14 p.m.

Captain Ryder: I intervene for a few moments to do my best to put before the House the position of naval ratings in a matter such as this. There has been a slight change towards those who have remained in the Fighting Services after the fighting has stopped. It is only a slight change, and maybe it is a natural change of feeling, but it is none the less significant. During the war it was entirely different. Every priority was afforded. The separations and sacrifices were a common bond in a common cause. But when peace intervenes, rations are cut, cigarettes are put up in price, customs and privileges are tightened up, and now we have this withdrawal of travel concessions.
I feel that some may say " As we now have conscripts, let each man take his lot, as his turn comes round," but I hope that that will not be the feeling of the House. It certainly does not apply in any way to the long-service Regular rating. For him there is no question of waiting just 18 months. He has probably served his time through the war. He is probably a married man, and home shore service has a very special significance in his service career. It is a period to which he has looked forward when he might hope to be united, or re-united, with his family. He has probably served for 2½ years on some foreign station before he comes home. What other section of the community has to put up with these long periods of separation? He has, perhaps, his foreign service leave, and he has to do another 2½ years overseas. Then perhaps his turn comes for home shore service.
When it comes to a question of weekend leave during this period of home shore service, I feel that we are talking about something which people who have not been exiled from their homeland for these long periods will not understand exactly. They will not realise what his feelings are. I can say that he attaches


the greatest importance to seeing as much as he possibly can of his family. It is a most vital and important matter. In this House, where personal and human affairs, I feel, strike a latent sympathy which often extends well outside the confines of party boundaries, I believe it will be appreciated that these matters affect different people in different ways. They may strike a cruel blow. The bonds of matrimony are sometimes frail, and if a man for some reason is unable to go home when he is perhaps expected, or needed, it may be a very sad and 'tragic thing. These matters, I feel, are sometimes overlooked by those who have not been in the position of naval ratings serving long-service engagements.
I should therefore like the Minister to consider very seriously some of the real implications which lie behind a man's weekend leave when he is on home shore service. As my hon. Friend has explained, travel concessions really do play an important part in this matter. I was not a little concerned by the reply which I received when I asked the Minister, in a supplementary question, whether this matter had been referred to the Admiralty. In the lives of these men, this weekend leave is a very important affair. I ask the Minister to realise that there is probably no other section 'of the community in which men are called to face such long periods of separation from their families. Those periods of separation may be equalled perhaps, but I do not think they are exceeded, in the case of men serving in the Merchant Navy. I ask the Minister, therefore, to look upon this as rather a special case.

11.20 p.m.

The Minister of Transport (Mr. Barnes): I want to assure the hon. and gallant Member for Merton and Morden (Captain Ryder) that when a special case is submitted, although it applies to all Service men, ' nevertheless the special circumstances of the Royal Navy and of those who go to sea are bound to make a special appeal to me. I will pick that up in the general course of my remarks, but I give him that assurance. I was very pleased that the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Hay) raised this subject this evening, and that he accepted my statement the other day, when this matter was raised

in Questions, that I was satisfied that the regional transport commissioners, in carrying out their duties, were not influenced with any desire to push traffic on to the railways.
It is necessary, from time to time, to emphasise that the licensing authorities hold an independent and quasi-judicial position; and it would be wrong if we ever allowed views to gain currency that they could be influenced in any way at all. I, as Minister, never influence their decision, and it is only when matters arising from their decisions come to me, through the machinery of appeal, that I can interfere. I agree that any policies which flow from any circumstances such as those which we have had to meet after the war, and which impose restrictions on or are taken as discriminating between the Services, need to be reviewed from time to time. Therefore, I welcome the interest which has been shown by hon. Members in forcing this matter to the front to compel its review in order that we may make sure that the original purpose behind any restriction of this kind still retains its original force; and, if circumstances have changed, that it should be looked at again in the light of those new circumstances.
This problem has a developing history. It started in 1947, as the railway services and the ordinary express coach services began to come back more fully. That coincided with the need for the severest economy in the use of petrol. Then another factor intervened. Under Section 25 of the Road Traffic Act of 1934, passengers cannot be carried at separate fares without a road service licence unless certain conditions are complied with; and one of those conditions is that the journey must not include persons who travel frequently or as a matter of routine on the particular journey concerned. While many of these things have been relaxed, the licensing laws were being stiffened as time passed. So, there was a combination of circumstances which led to a general integration of licensing authorities; they were to be more careful in these matters, and they were to secure the utmost economy. Private party operators, who had their own petrol supplies restricted, began to have some doubt as to their legal position in this matter.
It has followed, under those general directions, that economy must be secured


wherever possible on journeys of this kind, and it has led to a large degree of cooperation between the movement officers of the Services, the regional transport commissioners, and the operators themselves. As the express services have been started again, many of these decisions have not benefited the railways because the traffic has been diverted to the express coach services. That is the position which has developed over the period 1947 to 1949.
The movement of week-end troops, of course, is a very considerable transport operation and that is why I emphasised, in reply to the Question of the hon. Member, that we could not look at Culham or Abingdon as a single operation when all the regional transport commissioners and officers throughout the country are operating a general policy. I must emphasise that I have found that Service movement officers have been of very considerable assistance. They have co-operated very closely with the regional transport commissioners. We all agree that as a rule they are not the type of persons who would agree to any change in matters of this kind if it were likely to cause serious hardship or disability to Service personnel as a whole.
In the main, the majority of these rearrangements have taken place on a give-and-take principle. I do not deny for a moment that perhaps many of the station officers would have preferred the old arrangements to continue. But hon. Members know what it is when a general direction is given. Although, possibly, people would like to keep to their old arrangements, there is a desire to fall in generally with the situation. However, as the hon. Member pointed out, one of the recent changes has been that I have been able to restore the 12½ per cent. cut to coach operators generally and they move, in my Department, with any alterations made in the allocations of the private motorists.
Because of this restoration, which has eased the position generally with regard tc, services of that kind, I feel the time has come when I should again look at this problem. Hon. Members opposite will appreciate that with any method of transport that has been operating throughout the country and which applies to a great variety of conditions, it is very difficult to find any two camps whose conditions are exactly the same. It would not be possible for me to give any undertaking tonight that I would make any changes, because I would have to discuss them with, and get the experiences of, the regional transport commissioners, and so on. But the whole of my sympathy and understanding is to do the best I can in the circumstances in discharging my responsibility, and I will review the problem to see whether any easement can be given.

11.28 p.m.

Mr. Peter Thorneycroft: In the one minute left, I wish to thank the right hon. Gentleman for the undertaking he has given to look afresh at the problem of the leave travel of Service men. Both my hon. Friends have put forward a formidable case, in language of the utmost moderation upon the subject. The specific instances which they have quoted are, in the knowledge of most hon. Members, widespread throughout the country. I hope that the review will be as expeditious as may be, because I feel quite confident that if the right hon. Gentleman will state his own view upon this subject to the Transport Commissioners there will be no doubt that the benefits of this review will be acted on at an early date, to the advantage of the Service men concerned.

Question put, and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-nine Minutes past Eleven o'Clock.